Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Olympic Bid

Huw Irranca-Davies: If she will make a statement on the impact of the Olympic bid on grass-roots sport.

Tessa Jowell: We decided to bid for the Olympics for two reasons: first, as an expression of our ambition for sport and for Britain to be given the chance to host the greatest sports event in the world; and secondly because the process of bidding will enthuse and inspire young people to participate in sport at every level.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She will know that one of the most lasting long-term benefits of hosting any Olympics is its impact on grass-roots sports, not only through the development of infrastructure, but through providing champions, such as the excellent Lyn "The Leap" Davies from Nant-y-moel in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. However, although it is quite understandable that the majority of the infrastructure development will take place in the south-east, how will she spread the benefits for our youngsters in Wales and elsewhere to inspire them to go on to future Olympics beyond 2012?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for both his question and his interest in and concern about the matter. This is one of the most important challenges facing my Department and the Government, and we are seeking to rise to it in two ways: first, through unprecedented levels of investment in new facilities—nearly £700 million for England alone and £750 million from the New Opportunities Fund if one includes Wales and Scotland—and also by ensuring that by 2007–08, every child will have the opportunity to undertake at least two hours of high-quality physical education and sport every week. That is expressed as a target, but we are seeking first to invest in facilities, and secondly, to ensure that young people are motivated to take part in sport to help to deliver champions for 2012.

Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State is well aware that Conservative Members strongly support the Olympic bid, but does she recognise that it would be possible to raise even more money for grass-roots sport if the new Olympic lottery game were not to start in 2005—when, as we hope, we win the bid—as her Government have suggested, but contrarily, as we have suggested, to start so that it coincides with the Athens Olympics when the Olympics will be at the height of public interest? The Minister for Sport and Tourism has accepted that it would be possible under International Olympic Committee rules to start an Olympic lottery to coincide with this year's Athens Olympics. That would raise more money for sport, so will she continue to consider that?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we will no doubt return to that matter during the business of the House later this afternoon. I shall make it absolutely clear why we have taken our decision: first, as he will be aware, because the IOC will simply not permit an Olympic lottery to be mounted on any premature assumption that a specific city will host the games; and secondly, because I have given undertakings to the many good causes that will suffer some reduction in funds as a result of the Olympic lottery that that will not happen until and unless—as we all hope—London wins the bid to stage the Olympics. That decision will be announced in 2005.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure that the whole House agrees with the Secretary of State about the way in which a London 2012 Olympics could inspire a new generation of young athletes. Will she tell the House what she will do to ensure that the 2012 games will be clean and free of drugs? How are we going to get drugs out of sport so that our young people know that the role models who they follow are good, clean role models?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Of course, the issue is of great concern to not only the IOC, but, more generally, the governing bodies of sport. We can say with great pride that our contribution to the World Anti-Doping Agency is widely recognised by the IOC and, indeed, I hope that that will be seen as a strength when our bid is considered. I place on record my appreciation for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism in ensuring that the UK Government maintain leadership on that important matter.

Tourism

David Heathcoat-Amory: Whether she seeks to spend an equivalent sum per head of population in England on tourism promotion as is spent in other parts of the UK.

Richard Caborn: I am satisfied that the current level of funding is producing excellent results, particularly in England. For the first time for many years, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are now promoting England domestically. Last November, VisitBritain launched its domestic marketing strategy for England, which has a strong emphasis on the public-private partnership. Building on the success of last autumn's enjoy England campaign has given us good results indeed.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that Government expenditure on tourism promotion is 24p per head of population for England per year, but that the equivalent figure for Scotland is £5.50 a head and in Wales it is £8.10? Does he think that that is in any way reasonable or fair? What would he say to a west country tourism operator who sees tourists and tourism jobs going across to neighbouring Wales simply because of the large state subsidy, much of which is paid for by English taxpayers?

Richard Caborn: Not to be too pedantic, the expenditure is actually 21p in England and 570p in Scotland—[Interruption.] I said "not to be too pedantic". Output is relevant as well. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a good Conservative and wants good value for money. We spend that 21p in England and receive £208 per head spend from inbound visitors. In Scotland, the spend from visitors is £159 per head and in Wales it is £86 per head. It is real value for money when 21p brings in £208 in England and 570p brings in £159 in Scotland. As a very good Conservative, the right hon. Gentleman should welcome those figures.

Jim Knight: I certainly praise the value for money we receive in England for our tourism spend and press the case for the south-west to get even more value for money by getting more money.
	The Minister will know from talking to the Secretary of State following her big conversation in Dorset, how important the tourism industry is to the south-west but tourism is not just about spending; other issues matter as well. Will the Minister spread some light on his conversations with the Department for Education and Skills about the six-term organisation of the school year and its effect on the tourism industry?

Richard Caborn: The school year is a matter for local authorities.
	On the south-west, we recently moved all matters relating to tourism into the development agencies so that they could become a major part of the economic driver. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) just crowed on about putting more money into tourism and if he just would listen, he would hear me confirm that the South West of England Regional Development Agency is now putting £14 million into the south-west. One NorthEast is investing £13.1 million in its area. That dwarfs the 21p per head that he mentioned. The regional development agencies are taking tourism seriously and see it as one of the major developments in terms of inward investment and employment. Many of them are doing a first-class job with VisitBritain.

Patrick McLoughlin: If the Minister is correct that the Government are giving more importance to the amount of money spent by individuals when they visit areas, will he consider ways in which he could help the peak district, which gets more than 20 million visitors a year who, on average, spend very little? That is not good for the rural industries in the area.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and serious point: how can we get tourists, especially those who come to see day attractions, to stop overnight? It is a good question. The industry is working hard on that. VisitBritain and VisitEngland are also working to that end. The major visitor attractions are trying not only to get people to stay overnight, but to extend the tourist year. A lot is going on. We have regional development agencies and I hope that tourism is now seen as a major part of the economic development of the regions.
	The trade deficit in tourism is £15 billion a year, but the business reaps in around £75 billion a year. By 2010, that will have reached £100 billion. We have to grow it at 3p to 3.5p per annum to stand still. That is the challenge to the industry.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend mentions the trade deficit in tourism. Is he concerned about the depreciation of the dollar and the continuing high parity of the pound, which must be having a serious effect on tourism? Has he made an assessment of that and will he look into it to see what can be done about it?

Richard Caborn: We always make a continuous assessment. In terms of tourists from north America, it is not so much the dollar that matters. We are working hard to get those visitors back into the UK, but it is about confidence. VisitBritain's work and its million visitor campaign in north America has paid dividends, but the parity of the dollar and the pound is not that important at this stage for north American visitors.

Malcolm Moss: According to Tourism Alliance, 85 per cent. of overseas visitors to the UK come to England, but we heard the derisory and paltry figures that are spent on promoting England. In view of the balance of payments deficit in tourism, to which the Minister alluded, does he agree that we should invest more, not less, in promoting England as a destination?
	If we adopt the Government's present strategy of investing more through the regions, will we not pit region against region instead of concentrating on promoting the whole?

Richard Caborn: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman finished in that tone, because there has been nothing of that sort involving the regional development agencies. When the agencies were set up, there was the negative argument that region would be set against region, but that has not been the reality: on the contrary, the agencies have worked together. There have been many examples of such collaboration over the past three to four years.
	We must address many structural weaknesses in the tourism industry as we seek to develop it, for example, the industry's skills base. If we ask young people in schools and career offices whether they would consider going into the tourism industry, they reject it as second-rate. To help the industry, we have set up a sector skills council that will begin to operate within the next two months. As a result, I hope that we will be able to put tourism alongside any other industry by ensuring that it offers opportunities, well-paid jobs and a career structure. It is important to change current attitudes, because that is how we shall see a growth in tourism.

Chris Bryant: Is it not true that we need to get the tourist associations from Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland working far more closely together? The vast majority of international visitors coming to the UK visit only London. If they leave this country without having seen the beauties of Scotland or Wales, we have not served them very well.

Richard Caborn: We all work together through VisitBritain, which is a UK-wide organisation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up. We also meet the Tourism Ministers of the devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend has developed that joint structure much more firmly and has brought the Tourism Alliance together so that, for the first time, the industry speaks with one voice. In that sense, we are trying to bring the UK tourism industry together. I hope that we are working with a much stronger partnership because we want to tackle some of the structural weaknesses in the industry.

Rural Radio Stations

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If she will make a statement on rural radio stations.

Estelle Morris: Independent radio in the UK is licensed and regulated by Ofcom. Both Ofcom and the Government value the important contribution that all independent radio stations, including those in rural areas, make to a local community.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Minister will be aware that rural radio stations play a vital part in all communities. However, we have a problem in Exmoor, where the local radio station cannot get its signal out across the area. That is partly because it is in a national park—an area of outstanding natural beauty. The station cannot afford to erect hidden trees or trees disguised as masts. [Laughter.] Will the Minister provide a solution so that that local radio station can transmit to its entire area, namely Exmoor?

Estelle Morris: I might again disappoint the hon. Gentleman tremendously by saying that at the start of a busy week, and having just experienced one, the issue has not occupied a large amount of my thinking time.
	There are 260 local analogue radio stations, and throughout the nation, including rural areas, there is a trend for more radio stations to come into operation rather than fewer. Inevitably, because of the geography of the nation, there are parts of the country where reception is not as good as in other areas. However, the situation becomes better year by year rather than worse and I hope that in due course Exmoor will also benefit from that progress.

David Drew: In the Cotswolds, we can see the wood for the trees, but we have a slightly different problem in as much as reception, which depends upon the hills, is often poor. Many of my constituents complain that as much as they would like to listen to local radio, they are frequently prevented from doing so if they are on the wrong side of the hill. Will my right hon. Friend examine this issue, especially when licences are being granted, to ensure that coverage is as full as possible?

Estelle Morris: I will not look at the issue, but I am sure that Ofcom will do so because it is its responsibility—it is not the responsibility of government. Previously, we were talking about the beauty of the hills, but in this instance it seems that the hills are causing the problem. There is not a great deal that can be done about that.
	Many successful local radio stations broadcast within small geographical areas. They are extremely successful because they are local. That is the point of them. Inevitably there will be difficulties, but further investment is being directed into making broadcasting more effective. If there is a problem in the hills of my hon. Friend's constituency, I am sure that Ofcom will read his comments and reflect on them.

Tim Boswell: We on the Conservative Benches share the enthusiasm for local radio, and acknowledge that most rural radio stations do not always have access to the large staff or the regulatory or legal expertise of bigger groups. In the light of that, will Ministers do their utmost to limit regulation of those stations to a necessary minimum and, in particular, will they exercise severe self-restraint before invoking any overriding test of public interest?

Estelle Morris: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we do not want bureaucracy in small radio stations—many local radio stations are small—especially the new community radio stations that will start to operate after the pilot. However, we need to get the balance right. We want to safeguard the public interest and make sure that any local radio station operates within the legislative framework. The Communications Act 2003 affords us an opportunity to do so, but I take the hon. Gentleman's question seriously. It is appropriate that it is asked from time to time so that Ofcom and the Government make sure that they do not go over the top.

Tom Watson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is Groundhog day?

George Foulkes: So was yesterday.

Tom Watson: Is that right? Given that a large part of the BBC licence fee is spent on rural radio, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the Government have no plans to privatise the BBC so that we do not repeat that sterile argument today, tomorrow, next week and next month?

Estelle Morris: There is of course no question of our privatising the BBC. I congratulate my hon. Friend on combining his question with a celebration of Groundhog day—another thing on which I did not reflect very much over the weekend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has continually said that there is absolutely no case for privatising the BBC, and I am happy to repeat that at the Dispatch Box.

Draft Gambling Bill

Michael Fabricant: What representations she has received from the operators of charity lotteries with regard to the draft Gambling Bill; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn: Most representations from charity lotteries are about the distinction between lotteries and commercial prize competitions. We believe the Bill contains legal tests that make that distinction clear. Representations have also been made on the proposed 24-hour rule, which will control faster draws. We are reflecting on that rule and the representations at the moment.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for his answer. While the whole House will acknowledge the marvellous work done by the national lottery, does he agree that private lotteries such as those operated by hospices have an important part to play? Does he accept that the current draft Gambling Bill presents serious obstacles to the success of those hospice lotteries, on which those hospices depend to look after people in our communities? Has he received representations from groups such as the Acorn Children's hospice lottery and the St. Giles hospice lottery, which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

Richard Caborn: I got the gist of the question, Mr. Speaker, and I have some sympathy with such groups. When we were considering the Gambling Bill we had to clarify the role of the national lottery, probably the most successful lottery in the world, all of the proceeds of which go to good causes. We made a political decision to protect that role. We were also mindful of other charitable lotteries, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. Indeed, we tried to be fair and responded to all their questions about stakes, prize money and roll overs, and that is reflected in the Gambling Bill. As I have said, we tried to protect the role of lotteries in total, and draw a distinction between them and prize competitions. I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), is meeting representatives from the lotteries tomorrow. We will look very carefully at the results of that pre-legislative scrutiny, as we want to protect the lotteries, and make a clear distinction between them and prize competitions.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for the opportunity to question the Minister further on this matter as there is much at stake for charitable lotteries, many of which, as hon. Members know, do excellent work in their communities. The charitable lotteries are concerned about the Department's proposals because, compared with prize competitions, they must be registered, submit returns, and they must limit their prize money and stake. In addition, their participants must be over 16 and they cannot sell tickets in public kiosks. None of those things is included in regulations for prize competitions, and the charitable sector would like to know why. Given the fact that there has been a quarter drop in the amount of money given to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product, will the Minister promise to look again at creating a level playing field for the commercial and charitable sectors?

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes, but there are two distinct issues. Lotteries for charity are one thing. We make it clear that the national lottery, which is for good causes, should continue and should not be undermined. I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that the charities do not support the steps taken by the Department. The Bill will remove the £2 cap, allow roll overs and allow the sale of tickets by machines. The top prize money has been doubled, as the charities requested. The maximum price of tickets has been doubled to £2 and the Bill will remove that cap altogether. However, there is still a problem, which is why we look to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to make a clear distinction between lotteries and prize competitions. That is where the real commercial market exists. I give an assurance that we will take account of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's views.

Cycle Racing

Jon Trickett: What engagements she has carried out in relation to the sport of cycle racing in the past 12 months; what funds were made available to the sport; and what steps are being taken to encourage participation by school children in the sport.

Hon. Members: On yer bike.

Richard Caborn: Yes—very apt. I met representatives of cycling with my hon. Friend on 1 December last year to discuss major events in the sport. I confirmed the Government's support for cycling on that occasion, and I am delighted to announce today that funding is being made available to the sport to improve links between schools and amateur clubs, under the club links programme. That will apply to another 14 sports, which we will announce later today.

Jon Trickett: As a passionate cyclist, I often feel that my sport is undervalued and under-recognised, yet it achieved a fantastic result of 13 medals at the Commonwealth games in Manchester. There is a vast voluntary sector comprising 1,200 clubs across every community and neighbourhood. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pay particular attention to cycling and to the development of support, where possible, for that valuable voluntary sector, which is represented in every constituency?

Richard Caborn: Yes. We support club-to-school links, in which cycling is involved, and we support the sport's national governing body, the national coaching task force and the new coaching facility. We support the modernisation of 22 governing bodies, in which cycling is involved. Through the Millennium Commission, £43 million was invested in the first phase of the national cycling network. There is real commitment not just to the sport, but to cycling for leisure and to getting more young people active in cycling, which we consider important for health reasons.

Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for his personal interest in the sport of cycling. Can he assure me that some of the additional money he mentioned will find its way into cycle speedway—a largely unrepresented aspect of cycling, which is a minority sport anyway? If my right hon. Friend would like to see cycle speedway first-hand, I extend to him an invitation to come to the Colchester Stars cycle speedway club.

Richard Caborn: I shall look in my diary and see when I can take up that invitation. It is for the governing bodies to make representations to Sport England, as I have no doubt they will do. Following its modernisation, I pay tribute to the governing body of cycling, which did a first-class job and is fitting into the development of sports colleges and promoting cycling across the spectrum. The investment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is important, as it tends to bring young people into the sport in pursuit of their icons, and that is what drives sport forward.

English Heritage

Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the funding of English Heritage.

Estelle Morris: English Heritage received Government funding of £115.4 million in the financial year 2002–03. The allocation for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 is £121.7 million in each year. In addition, it received £1.5 million this year to support its modernisation programme.

Vincent Cable: Granted the need for financial economy in English Heritage, is the Minister aware of the crass and incompetent way in which it has gone about drastically reducing public access to Marble Hill house in my constituency, one of the leading English historic homes, and the anger that that has created among local supporters who have spent years generating money for it? Will she therefore intervene to ask for a postponement of that decision until there can be proper public consultation and consideration of other options?

Estelle Morris: I understand the strength of feeling of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, because I know that this is a very important issue in his constituency. English Heritage is an organisation at arm's length from the Government and it is not for Ministers to tell it to stop carrying out its proper business either because hon. Members raise a matter in the House or because there is local opposition. English Heritage must look at the management of its properties, and the proposal of which the hon. Gentleman speaks is in response to the quinquennial review. Where I would share with him a concern is in the local heartache that such difficult decisions can cause, and from what I have heard, the consultation may not have been as effective as it might have been. In that respect, I shall ensure that my view is passed back, but I emphasise that that is not with a view to stopping English Heritage carrying out its proper business.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that world-class visitor attractions, such as Whitby abbey, which are managed by English Heritage, should be working not only to attract visitors from outside the region but with local communities so that they can understand their heritage and culture? Will she look closely, with English Heritage, to see whether local schemes might allow easier and regular access for local people to make use of these world-class facilities?

Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that must be a priority for English Heritage. Interestingly, the savings that are being made, as in the example that we have just heard of in Richmond, are in part being used to fund outreach workers who will ensure greater access to and a greater understanding of our heritage of beautiful buildings throughout the country. My hon. Friend may very well find in the coming years that there are people in his locality who can take forward the sort of work to which he refers.

Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind the enormous sum of money brought into this country every year by tourism, will the Minister acknowledge that the amount spent by English Heritage is very modest, and will she talk to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see what he can do about increasing it in the Budget?

Estelle Morris: I would never say no if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offered more money for English Heritage or any other area of our Department's activities, but a considerable amount of money is spent, and a £6 million increase in that expenditure is guaranteed for each of the next three years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is also incumbent on English Heritage to ensure that that money is spent to best effect, and that is why I support its work in considering the portfolio of buildings. However, I agree that this is an area of activity where however many millions or even billions of pounds were put in, the money could always be put to good and effective use. As ever, we will try to secure more resources for our Department, but we should acknowledge that English Heritage has more money now and that that will continue to be the case in each of the next two years.

Sports Coaches

Meg Munn: What plans she has to increase the number of qualified sports coaches employed at a local level.

Richard Caborn: My Department is working closely with Sport England to create 3,000 full and part-time community sports coaches by 2006. They will work across a range of schools, clubs and local authorities to ensure that the maximum number of young people benefit from good quality coaching.

Meg Munn: When I visited an athletics camp in Norfolk park in my constituency in the summer, the athletics development worker told me that he had more funding for the six weeks of the holiday than he did for the rest of the year. Will my right hon. Friend look into this and also consider the need to provide funds where possible for youngsters from poorer areas for transport to venues to pursue their sports and for equipment?

Richard Caborn: The summer splash programmes were highly successful and we must put such programmes on to a more sustainable basis. That is but one part of trying to invest strategically and make sustainable Britain's sports infrastructure. That is why, through the sports colleges, we are committed to two hours of quality physical activity or sport for every child every week from the ages of five to 16. I have already mentioned the club-to-school link. Seventy per cent. of our young people do not continue to participate in an active sport when they leave school. We are dealing with the structural weaknesses in the club structure and in coaching. We will not make the system sustainable by addressing them singly—it has to be done in a much more strategic and focused way.

Don Foster: The Minister rightly points to the 3,000 people who will benefit from the coach match scheme, but does he recognise that about 1.5 million volunteers who are assisting in the development of sport will not benefit from it? To assist them, will he renew his energies in working with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that the sports governing bodies coaching award schemes meet the criteria for funding from the Learning and Skills Council?

Richard Caborn: Yes. Although we are investing in sport in general, the hon. Gentleman is right to identify the particular area of coaching. That is why we have not only invested in 3,000 coaches, but are looking for the first time at making coaching a profession in its own right. To that end, Sports Coach UK has developed five levels of coaching. All the governing bodies have come together to sign up to that, which is a welcome first. Those involved in sport are making a concerted effort collectively to ensure that its systems and structures are much more sustainable. Where we can invest in those areas, we want to continue to do so.

Michael Foster: Having a large number of qualified sports coaches may do some good, but without a decent—or safe—infrastructure, the work that they do will come to nothing. On Friday, I came across the case of Nunnery Wood athletics track in Worcester, which, having been promised 50 per cent. match funding under the community athletics refurbishment programme to make its track safe, was told by Sport England that it is now to get less than 20 per cent. match funding. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at that case and to try to ensure that we have decent tracks and infrastructure, as well as a large number of qualified sports coaches?

Richard Caborn: If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will do so. He should take note of the fact that Sport England is trying, with our support, to develop multisport clubs to arrest the figure of 70 per cent. of young people who do not continue sport when they leave school. Those clubs will have the facilities and coaching that are necessary to ensure that the governing bodies and local club structures can work together much more effectively. Young people are more likely to stay in sport if they are given access to a range of sports, rather than a single sport. We need a cultural change in how we deliver sport.

Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his proposals put even more pressure on local authority budgets to provide coaches at a time when several swimming pools in north Yorkshire and elsewhere are coming under threat because of the amount of money that they need? The funds from Sport England are simply not enough. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to relieve local authorities' budgets?

Richard Caborn: That is true, and we are working with local authorities in that regard. Changes are taking place in our society and in our communities as regards sports facilities. There are now more swimming pools in this country than there have been for many years, many of which are in the private sector. We have to develop a structure with the various governing bodies, including those for swimming. Ofsted uses swimming as one of the benchmarks by which it measures schools' activity levels. We are working with swimming associations and local authorities to ensure that the facilities are there for the C, D and E groups.

Andy Reed: As my right hon. Friend knows, I warmly welcome the introduction of coaches, especially at grass-roots level. However, will he ensure that that is only the first stage? As he rightly said, we need to ensure that coaches who would not necessarily benefit from the project now realise that there is a form of career progression in coaching, which is a much-maligned profession that has not been especially well supported in the past. Will he ensure that the scheme is a good example of moving forward and that, after a successful 12 to 24 months, he will take it back to the Exchequer to show that we can deliver when we put Exchequer funding into sports projects?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. I know that my hon. Friend has been active in such matters for many years. We have a foreign coach for nearly all our national sports, including soccer, and we could be condemned for that because it says much about the lack of professionalism in the structure of coaching. Our young people—and, indeed, our coaches—are as good as any in the world. We are trying to ensure that there is proper investment and that we have a proper career structure— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) goes on about it. When the Tories were in power, they did nothing about the coaching profession. Since we have come to power, we have developed with the governing bodies a proper structure and a profession in which young people can get sustainable employment. We will deliver national games with national coaches from the United Kingdom.

Olympic Bid

Elfyn Llwyd: What assessment she has made of the projected economic benefits of a successful London Olympic bid.

Tessa Jowell: We commissioned a cost-benefit analysis from Ove Arup before deciding to endorse the decision to bid to host the games in London in 2012. Staging the games would bring general economic benefits to Britain through business opportunities and potential tourism benefits through increased visitors. It will specifically benefit one of our most deprived parts of London.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. Although I fully endorse the London Olympic bid, I respectfully remind her that we need to bring the people of Scotland and Wales with us because £1.3 billion in lottery funding will be used to prop up the bid. May I remind her that there is excellent sailing in Wales, we are shortly to host the Ryder cup and the millennium stadium is probably the best in Europe?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and I greatly appreciate the spirit of cross-party support for the London bid, which is an important element of our strength. I take the hon. Gentleman's points. We hope that we will stage the games; their impact and ability to benefit every part of the UK will be an important test of their success.

Andrew Love: One of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the Olympics should be the local community in which they will be sited in the Lea valley, which is one of the most deprived communities in the country. What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to involve that community in the development of the bid to ensure that when we do win the Olympics it will benefit?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. Community support for the Olympics will be one of the important tests that the International Olympic Committee will apply. It is not only an important test for the committee, but for us as a Government. Involvement, regeneration, an estimated 9,000 new jobs to the area and the legacy of social housing will bring benefits to the part of London about which my hon. Friend is so concerned.

Richard Ottaway: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that a key component of the bid is the decision to site the yachting events at Weymouth and Portland harbour. It is a natural harbour and the obvious location. However, does she share my concern that Powergen has submitted planning applications to build a wind farm on the breakwater of Portland harbour? That will obviously have a detrimental effect on sailing and the Olympic bid. Does she agree that unless the whole country—including business—gets behind the bid, there will be no economic benefit?

Tessa Jowell: I will resist the temptation to express a view on planning matters, which are rightly a matter for the local authority. London 2012 has made the decision about the location of the yachting facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who is not currently in his place, like the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), has been a powerful advocate for the location. It will be an excellent venue.

Laura Moffatt: If she will discuss with Sport England the use of Crawley's new leisure facilities as part of the Olympic games 2012 bid.

Tessa Jowell: The venues proposed for the games were announced by the bidding company, London 2012, on 16 January, the day after the technical bid was submitted to the International Olympic Committee. They were chosen by 2012 to best fit the needs of the athletes and Olympic sports. If we win the bid, sporting facilities across the country will be used by national teams for training camps, and at that time Sport England will look at the range of facilities available.

Laura Moffatt: We in Crawley are desperate to share what will be first-class facilities, to be completed next year. We would very much like to be able to show the world that the Olympic bid is not just about London, but about the ability for the rest of the country to contribute. For us it will be the icing on the cake.

Tessa Jowell: I could not agree more about the importance of ensuring that the benefits of the Olympics spread throughout the United Kingdom, including Crawley. That is why we have the biggest-ever programme of investment in sporting facilities. Last year, I announced a further £100 million of lottery money to fund the Active England programme, so that we could meet our dual objectives of winning the Olympic bid and hosting the games in London, and increasing participation in sport. We want to inspire young people throughout the country, including Crawley, to become champions.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Cathedrals

Hugh Bayley: In what circumstances Church of England cathedrals may (a) be made bankrupt and (b) lose their charitable status.

Stuart Bell: First, let me thank the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their kind remarks about the conferring of an honour on me in the New Year's honours list. The House can be very generous on these occasions.
	When a charitable corporation, such as a Church of England cathedral, establishes a separate company under the companies legislation, that company can be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986 in the same way as any other company set up under the Companies Acts. Cathedrals are established for purposes which are recognised by law as charitable. The interaction between insolvency law and the law on charitable corporations is, however, untested as yet in the courts.

Hugh Bayley: May I add my congratulations on my hon. Friend's honour to those already expressed?
	I think my hon. Friend may have missed the point. He will know that Bradford cathedral has a county court judgment against it from my constituents in a company called Fast Forward for a sum amounting to more than £100,000. The judgment is not against a company set up by Bradford cathedral, but against the cathedral itself. Does my hon. Friend think it acceptable that a Church of England cathedral can have a judgment against it for such a large sum and simply refuse to pay? If it were a commercial body, bankruptcy proceedings would follow. If it were any other form of charity—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking up the cause of his constituents in a very proper and fastidious manner. He and I have arranged a meeting to discuss the details, to which I look forward.
	Legally and financially, cathedrals are independent bodies governed by the Cathedrals Measure passed by Parliament in 1999. The commissioners have a very limited statutory role in relation to cathedrals, which means that they have no power to compel Bradford cathedral to reach a settlement, and no power to provide funds.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Elections

Michael Fabricant: If he will urge the commission to recommend the expansion of all-postal elections; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Viggers: No. The Electoral Commission is an independent body, and the statutory functions of the Speaker's Committee do not extend to influencing its position on matters such as this. The commission itself, in its July 2003 report "The Shape of Elections to Come", recommended that all-postal voting should become the norm for local elections in England and Wales, but it believes that it would first be necessary to tighten the law relating to electoral fraud and, in particular, to move to individual electoral registration.

Michael Fabricant: I am reassured by that answer. What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that, for example, when postal ballots are delivered to large blocks of flats they are not stolen? We want to see as many people as possible vote in general elections, but what steps can be taken to ensure that personation does not take place?

Peter Viggers: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. The commission recognises that all-postal voting has resulted in increased turnout, which it welcomes. It has made it clear in all its published reports, however, that it is convinced that the risks of personation and intimidation must be addressed through specific changes to the law before all-postal voting is made more widely available.

Phyllis Starkey: When the Electoral Commission has considered all-postal voting in the past, has it taken into account the fact that young people are more likely to vote if there is a facility for postal voting, and that all-postal voting therefore has a particularly helpful effect in encouraging young people to exercise their right to vote?

Peter Viggers: Turnout among younger people has been disappointing. In fact, it is estimated that the turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds in the 2001 general election was only 39 per cent. Moves to encourage voting by all people, especially young people, will indeed be welcomed.

David Heath: What is the point of the Electoral Commission producing well-researched reports if the Government ignore the results? In the forthcoming European elections, only two regions were suggested as suitable for all-postal ballots, yet the Government have decided to go ahead with the pilot in four regions—including the whole of the north of England—disregarding colleagues from Scotland who supported Scotland's case to be included and without the safeguards that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) mentioned earlier. Does he find that satisfactory?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission was invited by the Government to nominate up to three regions in which all-postal voting could take place. It recommended two, and the Government have announced four.

Eric Forth: Why?

Peter Viggers: It is not for me, as a ventriloquisee, to have a view on those facts.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy Terms of Service

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on clergy terms of service.

Stuart Bell: The McClean report on clergy terms of service recommends conferring through Church legislation a new package of rights and responsibilities for clergy. These include access to employment tribunals to claim unfair dismissal; legal entitlement to the rights covered by section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, except for the right not to work on Sundays; a new form of tenure, known as common tenure, under which appointments for clergy without the freehold would normally be made until retirement; new clergy terms of service regulations which would clarify the responsibilities of clergy on a national basis; and a capability procedure to be invoked where clergy are failing to reach minimum standards.

Ben Chapman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the first report of the McClean commission represents a step forward. However, the final decision on employment rights for workers with atypical working arrangements rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. Given that, and other factors, what time scale does my hon. Friend envisage for the culmination of this somewhat drawn-out process?

Stuart Bell: I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the tenacity with which he has pursued this matter throughout his term in Parliament. I think that he would agree that the Church has acted with considerable speed on the issue. It has produced an extensive report on the first phase of its work within a year of being set up. Subject to the views of the Synod, that report will go out for further consultation throughout the Church. We will then liaise with the DTI to reach a conclusion.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Elections

Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on the postal voting pilots.

Peter Viggers: Postal voting pilot schemes have taken place at various elections since 2000. In September last year, the Government introduced the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill to provide for electoral pilot schemes at the June 2004 elections. At the same time, the Government asked the Electoral Commission to recommend up to three regions in which it would be suitable to run pilot schemes. The commission submitted its report on 8 December 2003.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know that the evidence shows clearly that when there has been one all-postal pilot scheme in an area, turnout is increased, and when there have been two, turnout is boosted further. He will also know that in Wales there has been a single all-postal ballot in one community council. Does he therefore share my disappointment that Wales has not been fortunate on this occasion? Does he agree that we must try to be innovative, while taking on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and others? Otherwise, Wales risks being the also-rans in terms of trying to increase democratic turnout.

Peter Viggers: The commission's evaluation of pilot schemes has identified that turnout has been higher when all-postal voting is used, and the effect is sustained when postal voting is used for the second or even third time. The hon. Gentleman is therefore correct. As to the June 2004 elections, the commission concluded that too high an element of risk would be involved in a pilot in Wales, as the combination of European elections and local government elections in every local authority created greater complexity than in other areas under consideration. As to the longer term, however, the commission has already recommended that all-postal voting be made widely available in England and Wales, for all local elections, subject to certain security measures.

Patrick McLoughlin: Has the commission considered the rules under which these postal votes will take place? What is the position in relation to supplying information to political parties during the return of ballot papers via the postal system?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission has expressed concern about the very point that my hon. Friend has made. It issued a statement on 23 January, in which it called on the Government to abandon plans to provide pre-poll information in the pilot areas. In the event that the Government are unwilling to do so, the commission has called for the introduction of a number of safeguards. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for that question.

Harry Barnes: What evidence does the Electoral Commission produce as to who made use of the postal votes? If the vote of young people has increased, are we sure that those votes were not exercised by their parents or some other dominant influence in their community? Do we not need to watch that, because ultimately postal votes might come to be treated like another piece of junk mail?

Peter Viggers: The commission takes seriously the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. It has recommended a wide range of measures, including replacement of the current declaration of identity with a new security statement; inclusion of new secrecy warnings on postal literature and ballot papers; more effective tools for prosecutors; a new police power of arrest on reasonable suspicion of personation at any location, not just at polling stations; a marked register showing who has cast a vote by post; and tighter controls on the handling of postal ballot papers. The Electoral Commission is therefore seized of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Election Broadcasts

Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement on reforming party election broadcasts.

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission published recommendations for the reform of party election broadcasts in January 2003, following a formal review of party political broadcasting arrangements, and submitted them to the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The commission supported the continued role of party election broadcasts in the democratic process, but made a number of detailed recommendations for changes to the legislation and practice regarding the allocation of broadcasts to political parties.

Chris Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that free party political broadcasts, which have been a tradition in this country for many decades, are an essential part of British democracy? The system, however, is now ripe for reform, to allow, for instance, shorter, pithier party political broadcasts, especially on all digital channels, not just on some, as is the case at present. Has he had an opportunity to see the submission of the Conservative party, which, alone among all the parties, it has kept secret until now?

Peter Viggers: I have not been involved in discussions with the Conservative party. The main recommendations of the Electoral Commission were that the ban on paid advertising should be retained and that there should be a statutory duty to determine rules that would govern party political broadcasts, which are not currently on a statutory basis. As to the specific point made by the hon. Gentleman, he has on other occasions recommended that party political broadcasts should be shortened to as little as 30 seconds. The view of the Electoral Commission is that it would be better if broadcasts were shortened to not less than 90 seconds, thereby clearly distinguishing them from ordinary commercials.

Andrew MacKay: Would it not be in the public interest to scrap all these party political broadcasts, which would have the added benefit of avoiding the electricity power surge when everyone goes out to the kitchen to put the kettle on?

Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission formed the view that the broadcasts should be continued. There is a technical point, in that human rights legislation might bite and require us to have paid advertising if we were not to have party political broadcasts.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church of England's Pension Fund

Michael Jack: What assessment the commissioners have made of the cumulative impact on the Church of England's pension fund of the ending of the payable tax credit.

Stuart Bell: Once the transitional arrangements have come to an end in April 2004, the commissioners' income will have reduced by around £12 million per annum. Furthermore, the funded scheme responsible for pensions arising from service after 1 January 1998 had to increase the pension contribution rate as a direct result of the tax credit changes, and it is estimated that this additional cost to the Church is £5 million per annum.

Michael Jack: Should not the Government revisit this matter, given the difficulties that the Church of England will have in replacing income of that order through the collecting plate or through other means?

Stuart Bell: The figures that I have given are our contribution to the state, thanks to the Treasury. We are always happy to make submissions along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman suggested for the next Budget.

Chairmanship of the BBC

David Winnick: (urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will explain the procedure for the appointment of a new chair of the BBC governors.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and welcome the opportunity to respond, for several reasons. First, whatever the strength of the disagreement between the Government and the BBC over Mr. Gilligan's story, I want to place on the record the appreciation of the House for the outstanding contribution made by Gavyn Davies, both as vice-chairman and as chairman of the BBC. I regret that we now have to appoint a new chairman. [Interruption.] The fact that the decision to resign was Gavyn's, and his alone, is a mark of his honour and integrity and demonstrates his overriding concern for the interests of the BBC.
	In similar vein, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the director-general, Greg Dyke, for his inspirational leadership. It is now, of course, for the governors to appoint his successor. [Interruption.] The whole House will note how the opportunists on the Conservative Benches are not even prepared to observe the normal courtesies.
	The two resignations happened over the past week, and this has been a very difficult period for the BBC, but we must now look to safeguard its future. The corporation needs strong leadership, stability and the capacity to engage fully with the charter review process, which is already under way. We will therefore move swiftly to appoint a new chairman. The process for appointing Mr. Davies's successor will follow in full the Nolan rules.
	Specifically, that means that we will publish a role specification against which all candidates will be assessed; the post will be advertised in the national press and on the internet; and the shortlisted candidates will be interviewed by a panel including an independent assessor, who will be involved throughout the process. Under the BBC's royal charter, the appointment will be made by the Queen in Council, following this process, on the advice of Ministers.
	It is worth recording, for the benefit of the House, that Gavyn Davies was the first BBC chairman to be appointed through the transparent Nolan process, which is now, under this Government, standard for all public appointments. The process is held in wide respect, but because of the public interest in this appointment, we have decided to enhance it further.
	Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, has agreed to act as guarantor for the fairness of the process, and she will convene a scrutiny panel to ensure its integrity. The panel will be made up of Privy Councillors from the three main parties, and I hope that their names will be announced in the coming days. I hope that the double lock of Nolan and the scrutiny panel will give the public, this House and staff at the BBC the reassurances that they deserve about the independence of this process.
	We all want a strong BBC that is independent of government, and anyone who cares about politics, standards in public life and the quality of our media knows just how much the BBC matters. It provides this nation and the wider world with a cradle-to-grave public service. Because of that, it should have the self-confidence to promote those values and to defend them against all comers. Central to that independence and self-confidence is the leadership of the BBC chairman. I can assure the House that whosoever is chosen will be chosen fairly, freely and with the best interests of the BBC at heart.

David Winnick: I am not sure why the panel should be confined simply to Privy Councillors, but let that be. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country want to ensure that the BBC will retain its independence, and that its integrity will be respected by all—I repeat all—Governments? Will she resist those who want to use the current situation as an opportunity to put forward the agenda that they have had over the years, which involves the downsizing, or even the privatisation, of the BBC? Unfortunately, that view is held not only among the Tory ranks; one or two of our own colleagues have also put forward such ideas.
	Should we not understand that the BBC has a reputation for the excellence of its broadcasting, not only in Britain but throughout the world? We should not be in the business, under any circumstances, of undermining that fine tradition.

Tessa Jowell: I agree with my hon. Friend, and central to the BBC's responsibility—it is a source of both its strength and its independence—is the responsibility that rests with the governors to ensure accuracy and impartiality in news reporting. That is important not just in terms of the BBC as an institution, public expectations of it and the integrity that flows from that; it is also important because the BBC has to be a bedrock of accuracy and truth that the public understand in our highly diversified and polemical media, which are unregulated so far as newspapers are concerned. The contract, as it were, between the BBC and the public relies on precisely the characteristics that my hon. Friend outlines.

Julie Kirkbride: We Conservatives would like to pay tribute to Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies, the outgoing chairman and director-general of the BBC; that is in stark contrast with the Secretary of State's crocodile tears. We welcome the fact that Dame Rennie Fritchie will oversee the appointment. She comes with a distinguished record, having already exposed the Government for stashing health quangos with Labour placemen.
	Can the Secretary of State confirm that, had she accepted our amendment, which would have placed the BBC under Ofcom, this whole sorry business of having to find a new chairman might not have arisen? Does she accept that the public are rightly concerned about Greg Dyke's accusation that he and journalists at the BBC were systematically bullied and intimidated by this Government, and that that makes it all the more important that the process of appointing a new chairman be free, fair and impartial?
	Given that morale at the BBC is clearly extremely low, will the Secretary of State ensure that the new chairman is appointed speedily, in order to give direction to the BBC at this critical time? Finally, will this new, independent process for selecting the chairman of the BBC be made permanent both for the chairman and for all future governors?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady seizes once again what she views as an opportunity to make a political point. However, I would like to remind the House how the appointment of the chairman of the BBC was made under the previous Government. Let me recount Marmaduke Hussey's account of how he was appointed. There was no independent panel, no public advertisement and no Dame Rennie Fritchie. Instead, while he was staying in Ullapool on a salmon fishing holiday, he had a conversation about how the vacant post of chairmanship of the BBC would be filled. In response to that question, Duke Hussey replied:
	"I have no idea . . . but the BBC is in a terrible state, obviously out of control with some pretty unreliable characters there too. They'll be hard pushed to persuade some idiot to take it on".
	Three days later, the telephone rang, as he describes in his account, at about 9.30 in the evening:
	"Oh Dukie, it's Douglas Hurd here, with a very odd question to ask you. Would you like to be Chairman of the BBC?"
	Douglas Hurd told him that he was inviting him
	"on behalf of the cabinet",
	but the problem was that he had to have an answer by Saturday lunchtime. That is the difference between the present Government and the Conservative party: the Government are committed to a fair and independent process; the Conservative party, when in government, did it by patronage.

Chris Smith: Given that it is my strong view that neither the chairman nor the director-general of the BBC needed to resign last week, and given that the primary task facing us all now is to reassert as strongly as we can the robust independence of the BBC as a public service broadcaster and to restore the morale of a very battered organisation, would it not make sense for the Secretary of State to increase the independent element in both the shortlisting and the interviewing part of the process, so that more than just one independent person is involved in both those processes?

Tessa Jowell: First, it was the decision—and their decision alone—of the chairman and the director-general to resign. Our job now is, through the speedy appointment of the chairman, to enable the organisation to move on. I would like to say that I am well aware of the demoralisation among BBC staff and I would not for one moment—I am sure that the House would not for one moment—want to suggest that the serious shortcomings found by Lord Hutton with specific reference to Andrew Gilligan's story are shortcomings that are generalised across the news coverage of the BBC, which has to meet standards of accuracy and impartiality by constitutional obligation.
	In response to my right hon. Friend's final suggestion, I say no. Given that Dame Rennie Fritchie has undertaken to discharge the oversight responsibility, we have to be confident of the enhanced independence of the process which, as my right hon. Friend well knows, is used to fill almost every public appointment.

Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree that events over the past few days have left the BBC rudderless and that staff morale is at rock bottom? In that light, will she join me in praising BBC staff for their skill and impartiality in the way in which they covered their own difficulties? As to the new role of the new chairman of the BBC, will she ensure that it will never be necessary again for a new governor to have to deal with the sort of Blitzkrieg attack launched by No. 10 Downing street over coverage of the Iraq war? Does she agree that that has left fear and intimidation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about the appointment of the chairman of the BBC.

Tessa Jowell: First, the BBC is not rudderless: Lord Ryder is an extremely fine acting chairman and Mark Byford is an extremely competent and much admired acting director-general whom many people regard as embodying the values of public service broadcasting. Secondly, the BBC has shown its independence throughout its angry exchanges with the Government. Such exchanges happen—they happened under Conservative Governments and they have happened under our Government. We are determined to safeguard the BBC's independence, not in our interests but in those of the people of this country.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has rightly reminded the Conservative party of how such matters used to be arranged, but I am a little puzzled by her comments about the new process. Dame Rennie Fritchie is known for her robust independence as the overseer and regulator of the Nolan system. Why does she need enhanced scrutiny, and will the arrangement be permanent? Has my right hon. Friend seen last year's Public Administration Committee report, which said that the Committee can see no reason for keeping public appointments within ministerial hands and that such appointments should go to an independent commission? If Ministers want to make key public appointments, a Committee of this House should vet such appointments.

Tessa Jowell: It is an oversight, but I am afraid that the detail of last year's report has escaped me. There are three reasons why we are grateful that Dame Rennie Fritchie has accepted the responsibility. First, the circumstances are exceptional. Secondly, we want quickly to appoint Gavyn Davies's successor. Thirdly, although the Public Administration Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend, will obviously further consider whatever general issues may arise about public appointments, it was my view in discussion with the Prime Minister that, given the particular circumstances, we had to raise the bar for this particular appointment, in the public interest, so that everybody can be confident in the independence of the process and in the integrity of the person who is appointed.

Roger Gale: As a former BBC current affairs producer and director, I am naturally delighted to learn about the right hon. Lady's commitment to an independent BBC. That being so, will she answer the question—she has failed to answer it so far—put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? Can she guarantee that the next chairman and the next director-general of the BBC will not be subjected to political interference from a mendacious, foul-mouthed spokesman from Downing street?

Tessa Jowell: The chairman and director-general of the BBC were not subjected to interference. As people would expect, the exchanges were robust. I wish that the Conservative party, which the process has left bankrupt and exposed, would not seek to reinvent history.

Dennis Skinner: Although the Secretary of State refers to the integrity of the BBC—a lot of people will applaud her for that—the truth is that some Labour Members who represent workers in the country take a different view. Twenty years ago, the BBC was a tool of the Government during the miners' strike. I have never changed my view about its impartiality and integrity, especially when one of its senior political operators told me a few years ago that his job was to carry out the role of the Opposition because the Opposition were not capable of doing it—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dennis Skinner: I have not finished—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have. I call Mr. Salmond.

Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question in detail? How exactly will a new system of appointment protect the BBC from the campaign of bullying and intimidation, as described by the director-general? In addition to the process, is not a code of practice for Downing street advisers required, to prevent such political thuggery from undermining the independence of the BBC?

Tessa Jowell: What is important is that the BBC is true to its constitutional responsibilities in relation to accuracy and impartiality and that it is strong and independent. So strongly do we in the Government believe in those principles for the BBC that we are setting before the House today an enhanced process for the immediate appointment of the chairman, in order to ensure them.

Gerald Kaufman: Since my right hon. Friend makes it clear that, in the end, the appointment will be made on the advice of Ministers, will she accept that it would be a very serious mistake indeed to appoint anybody who is publicly associated with any political party, as of course was the case when the Conservatives, in their last appointment, appointed an active member of the Conservative party who was also a former Conservative candidate? Independence from political parties is vital for the person, because that is the only way in which the independence and the reputation for integrity of the BBC can be restored. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that it would do no harm if the person concerned had some knowledge of the media?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. What is clear, and what history and the accounts of past chairmen show, is that when the Conservatives were in government they made no pretence at all of independence or integrity in the appointment of the BBC chairman. We take an entirely different position, because the independence and strength of the BBC are so important.
	My right hon. Friend raised the question of whether people who have had—or who have—a particular political affiliation should be discounted from the process. We have to proceed on the basis that we are seeking the very best person to do the job and that the process that I have set out today will subject a range of candidates to that kind of scrutiny. Nobody would believe that it was right for the person who becomes chairman of the BBC to be actively political—[Hon. Members: "Ah."]—of course not. The point is that if we put on the advertisement specifically that people will be ruled out because of their past political affiliation, we might rule out candidates, from any party in the House, who were worthy of, and deserved, proper consideration.

Edward Garnier: Who will write Dame Rennie's guarantee? Who will be the judge of its effectiveness? How will it be enforced, and what remedies will flow if there is a breach?

Tessa Jowell: Those will all be matters for Dame Rennie.

Tam Dalyell: In view of the tenor of some of the questions this afternoon—such as "Blitzkrieg"—would it not be wise to place in the Library the letters that Alastair Campbell sent so that we can make an adult judgment on this vexatious subject?

Tessa Jowell: I understand that the urgent question focuses specifically on the appointment of the chairman of the BBC—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady does not need to answer that question—it has nothing to do with the statement.

Points of Order

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of which I have given you notice. You will know that we have been calling, as have others on both sides of the House, for a full inquiry into the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, given that none has been found. According to today's Downing street briefing, a decision is to be made shortly. Would it not be right for the opposition—the other parties in the House—to be consulted on who should undertake the inquiry and its terms of reference so that it could command cross-party support? Can you assure us, Mr. Speaker, that if the decision is announced tomorrow at the Liaison Committee, when the Prime Minister gives evidence, you will ensure, through the powers available to you, that the whole House will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on this very important matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. If something is going to happen tomorrow, I will look at the situation tomorrow, but today there is nothing before me regarding that matter.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a media frenzy outside about the subject—shifting sands regarding WMDs and so on and so forth. Bearing in mind the importance of the whole issue to the future of the Prime Minister, should not a statement be made in this House, and not elsewhere?

Mr. Speaker: The media always seem to be in a frenzy.

Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of rulings that you have given on previous occasions about matters of great importance coming to this House first, and given that representatives on both sides of the House have been clamouring for an inquiry of the type that might be about to be announced, could you use your good offices to ensure that there will not be a statement by the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee and that there categorically will be a statement in this House?

Mr. Speaker: As I say, the matter is not before me at the moment.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a simple seeker after truth, may I ask whether you were not a little quick on the draw, Mr. Speaker, in saying that my question should not be answered, because a lot of people are asking it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House has been here for a long time. The question did not relate to the statement, which is why I was rather quick.

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the spurious nature of the interventions so far, will you consider running a master class on points of order?

Mr. Speaker: One day, perhaps, I will get a proper point of order.

Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Even from the right hon. Gentleman.

Eric Forth: On a genuine point of order, a genuine one, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm to the House that our Standing Orders now allow for a thing called an urgent question to be submitted to you on matters that are deemed by you to be both important and urgent? Without wanting to speculate on anything that might happen in the future, could you not at least contemplate that the sort of subject that has been raised this afternoon might be just that thing?

Mr. Speaker: The statement that we heard from the right hon. Lady was made because an urgent question was granted. I look at requests for urgent questions every day.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you perhaps ensure that whatever in future appears on the monitor to inform Members of business is correct in its nature? When we had the urgent question, the title on the monitor was "Chairmanship of the BBC". Many of us would therefore have thought that what the Father of House said was a matter that related to the chairmanship of the BBC.

Mr. Speaker: No matter what is on the monitor, the best thing is always for hon. Gentlemen and Ladies to come in and hear the statement. The supplementaries can then be related to the statement.

Alistair Burt: Further to the point of order raised by the Father of the House, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a matter relating to the process of selecting the chairman of the BBC that all information necessary for a prospective chairman to make a decision on what the job entails should be made public and open? A desire to understand the nature of the relationship between—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Alistair Burt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not defy the Speaker. I stopped proceedings on the statement five minutes ago—we are finished with it. Orders of the Day

Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Tax

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 16, at end insert—
	'(3) Nothing in this Part constitutes arrangements for the purposes of—
	(a) section 42(2) of the Finance Act 1930 (c. 28) (relief from stamp duty),
	(b) section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1967 (c. 54) (stamp duty), or
	(c) paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 2003 (c. 14) (relief from stamp duty land tax).'.
	This technical amendment would put it beyond doubt that the powers in part 1 do not amount to arrangements falling within section 42(2) of the Finance Act 1930 or section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1967, which relate to stamp duty, or within paragraph (2) of schedule 7 to the Finance Act 2003, which relates to stamp duty and land tax, commonly known as SDLT—no doubt that is now clear to the House.
	If the powers in part 1 were to amount to such arrangements, their existence would mean that the group relief from stamp duty on a transfer of shares, or SDLT on a transfer of an interest in land, was not available for transfers between members of the Tote group after the Bill becomes law but before the Tote is vested in a successor company. The amendment ensures that such a claim to relief does not fall on those grounds. Any subsequent transfer outside the Tote group will be subject to stamp duty or SDLT under the normal rules.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Pre-sale issue of shares, &c. to Government

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
	'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not nominate any person unless satisfied that the person nominated will use all surpluses generated by the company for the support or improvement of horseracing.'.
	The amendment is a response to debates on Second Reading and in Committee in which we discussed at some length, although not at exceeding length, to whom the Tote should be sold. Opposition Members were worried by the Minister's assertion, repeatedly made in Committee—I have the text in front of me—that the House was deciding to sell the Tote full stop and that any constraints on whom it should be sold to would frustrate the will of the House.
	The amendment would slightly constrain the Government in whom they sell the Tote to—or, to be more precise, in whom they sell shares in the successor body to—by ensuring that the Secretary of State can nominate someone for transfer of shares in the successor company only if she is satisfied that the person who is nominated will use the surpluses for the support or improvement of horse racing.
	The House is familiar with the fact that the Tote's role is to operate an exclusive pool betting system and that all the profits from that, together with substantial sponsorship, go back into horse racing. Various figures have been quoted. For instance, the Tote put roughly £14 million into horse racing in the last financial year. That is a significant sum. It is widely accepted by everyone in the horse racing industry and, I think, by the Minister that we should do our level best to ensure that that flow of resources from the Tote into racing continues.
	The Minister made it clear, as did his predecessors and various Secretaries of State, that it is the Government's desire to sell the Tote to a racing trust. Indeed, the House knows that a shadow racing trust already exists and is waiting to negotiate the details with the Government. However, as the Minister said in Committee:
	"No one can give us a complete guarantee that racing will be in a position to buy it."
	We cannot counter that argument. It is conceivable that the racing industry will not be able to buy the Tote in the envisaged format. What worries me is that if that sale falls through for an unforeseen reason, the flow of resources from the Tote into racing should continue, whatever happens to the Tote itself. Later in response to what he described as a "hypothetical question", the Minister said:
	"The answer is yes, we would sell into something. If we cannot sell into a racing trust, and the House of Commons has said that it wants to sell the Tote, we will be in some difficulties. We would have a piece of legislation instructing us to sell the Tote, and we would therefore have to consider options. That is not our intention."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 25-26.]
	I think that the Minister showed that he misunderstood the desire of the House. Anyone who paid attention to our debates on Second Reading and in Committee will know that everyone who contributed to the debates did so on the understanding that the Tote would be sold to the racing trust, or at least into an organisation whose interests would be synonymous with those of racing.
	The House is not instructing the Minister; rather, it is enabling the Minister or the Government—this is an enabling piece of legislation—to sell the Tote, or at least to transfer the shares in the successor company. I think that the Minister is wrong to suggest, as he did in Committee, that somehow we are instructing the Government to sell and then, by moving amendments, such as amendment No. 5, putting an obstacle in the way.
	I have made it clear that I want to see the Tote sold into the hands of the racing trust. Failing that, I want to see it sold into the hands of individuals or a group of people who will ensure that the flow of money into racing continues. That is the only constraint that I wish to put on the Government, and it is only a minor constraint.
	The Minister clearly believes that he should have complete freedom, despite the undertakings that he has given to sell to a racing trust. I do not believe that the House wants to give carte blanche to the Minister to sell to anybody regardless. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making a serious error of judgment if he thinks that that is the view of the House. The Bill does not instruct the Minister to sell; it simply enables him to carry out the policy that he has enunciated on several occasions.
	I move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will respond seriously to our points of concern. We all hope that the sale to the racing trust will go through. That is the desire of Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister. However, we must consider what happens if, for some reason, the sale falls through. I seek to introduce a small constraint, which is that the Secretary of State should allow the transfer of shares, or nominate someone for that transfer, if she or he is persuaded that that person has the interests of racing at heart, and that that is where any surpluses that are generated will go.
	The Minister may find some technical grounds to reject the amendment. That is commonplace in the House. However, I want him to address the principal issue. Whatever happens to the amendment, the fundamental issue that people in the racing industry want to know is whether he is determined to sell the Tote come what may, regardless of whether the shadow racing trust can purchase it and regardless of whether anyone with an interest in racing can or wishes to purchase it. Is the right hon. Gentleman determined to sell it regardless of those concerns? Is he prepared to sell to anyone, including, possibly, another bookmaker? That is the question that needs to be answered.
	I hope that the Minister will say no. I hope that he will make it clear that it is the Government's intention to sell to the racing trust if that is possible, and that if that falls through, he will ensure that the Tote is sold in a way that is equally beneficial to racing. I am looking for that answer from the Minister.
	This is an important repetition of debate in Committee. It goes to the heart of future ownership of the Tote and its contribution to racing.

Don Foster: People who studied our deliberations on Second Reading and in Committee will know that they were distinguished by broad support for the Bill among Members on both sides of the House. It is an enabling measure that, as several hon. Members said on Second Reading, has a number of gaps. The amendment seeks to address a gap that was discussed at considerable length in Committee. The whole House has made it clear that it is in favour of the sale of the Tote if it would benefit both the taxpayer and racing. Committee members agreed that profits should be split 50:50, but there was a clear understanding in Committee and on Second Reading that the purchasers of the Tote were expected to put all the profits from the operation of the Tote back for the benefit of racing. The Minister has implied that he is in favour of such an arrangement.
	It is only fair, however, to point out a problem that arose in Committee. Some hon. Members argued that the Government should be required to sell the Tote only to the racing trust. Others, including me, thought that that would tie the Government's hands, and we fully believed that, if the racing trust could not purchase the Tote, there should be an opportunity for negotiation with other bodies. The difficulty is clear in our deliberations on 20 January, especially at column 26, when as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, we failed to get a clear, categorical answer from the Minister to a simple question. I asked whether the Minister would tell the Committee
	"whether he believes that there are any circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to sanction a sale of the Tote to a body that does not intend to put the entirety of the profits received from the Tote into racing".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 26.]
	Unfortunately, we did not get a clear and unequivocal answer. I suspect that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire would be happy to withdraw his amendment if we now received a clear assurance from the Minister.
	The Bill is an enabling measure and does not require the Secretary of State to sell the Tote. It is possible that the interests of both racing and the taxpayer would be best served if there were no sale. The only circumstances in which I can envisage that happening are if the sale were to be made to an organisation that would not invest the profits in racing. I suspect that the Minister agrees with everything that I have just said. The Bill's progress through the House would be speeded up if he said that he does, and then we would all be happy.

Alex Salmond: I shall approach amendment No. 5 from a slightly different angle.
	I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I have read its proceedings. Under normal circumstances, I could accept the defence that the Minister made in Committee in response to requests for an assurance to be included in the Bill. However, these are not normal circumstances for the racing industry. There is a great pall of uncertainty because of the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading and speculation about the eventual consequences. Since Second Reading, the broadcasting of racing has been up in the air. Contracts that were supposed to be in place are being renegotiated as we speak. In that fevered atmosphere, if the Minister cannot find a way to include such an assurance in the Bill, could he not act as a beacon of stability and try to provide assurances about one aspect of the future of the racing industry? This applies to other amendments as well.
	I notice that we have the Minister somewhat outnumbered. We will push our case not on that basis, but on the logic of the argument. I am sure that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberals would be guilty of trying to trap the Minister into doing something to which his civil servants would be opposed. Instead, we appeal to his good will. All sectors of the racing industry have looked to him in recent times to chart a way out of the instability, which could be extremely damaging. The aspect under discussion is under the Minister's control, and no one doubts his good will. Can he not find a way to quell the uncertainty and provide a guiding light as we debate this and other amendments?

Richard Page: Not surprisingly, I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). It was debated at reasonable length and with good humour in Committee, so I shall not gallop over that ground again. For most of the debate on the Bill, the Minister has been saying, hand on his heart, "Trust me, I'm a politician." He made a host of generous and warm remarks, which fell just a tad short of commitment. My hon. Friend's amendment asks for a little commitment.
	Everyone wants the sale to the racing trust to go through, but the Minister agreed that if it did not, a racing trust could substitute. I understand that the Government do not want their hands tied if all the options fall through—let us hope that they do not fall through, as that would be disastrous for racing. As my hon. Friend said, racing desperately needs the support of the Tote's money. Its finances have improved dramatically over the past couple of years, thanks to the actions of several dedicated and hard-working individuals, but as we heard, various negotiations are taking place.
	One or two people may think that the comments and views of the Office of Fair Trading on the matter have not helped the financing of racing, so we are looking for an assurance that the money from the Tote will be available for racing. It is a valuable industry. I shall not go through all the statistics mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee. I cannot see the Minister accepting the amendment at this point, but I hope he can give some encouragement that when the Bill goes to the other place, there will be a little more direction and a little more commitment. The Bill lacks a few datum points that would provide certainty for the negotiations and the way forward. I shall return to that in the context of other amendments.

Laurence Robertson: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The purpose of the Bill is not to nationalise the Tote, but to privatise it or change its status. It is rather odd that that objective is not in the Bill. The Bill deals with the nationalisation of the Tote, which is not the objective.
	As we know, the Tote was set up in the 1920s for the purpose of racing. That is why a racing trust, as opposed to any other form of trust, has been set up. Of course, the Tote takes bets on all manner of sports, but a racing trust has been set up because the Tote was set up for the benefit of racing. The Tote is not just any old bookmaker. Other bookies also put money into racing, but the Tote's profits go into racing, as well as the sponsorship that it puts in. It is therefore a national institution. It has run the exclusive pool betting licence for the benefit of racing and for the benefit of the punters. One pool, as opposed to several pools, means that if the punter is fortunate enough to win, they get a bigger prize than if there were many different pools.
	A sale to any body other than one set up purely to benefit racing would be wrong and would miss the point of the Bill. In a brief speech, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described racing's uncertain finances. For example, there is the change in the Attheraces deal, we have uncertainty with regard to the future of the levy board, and the OFT creates great uncertainty everywhere it treads. The last thing that racing needs at the moment is the possibility, albeit small and albeit inadvertent, of any further loss of income if the Tote sale does not go to the racing trust, as we all intend and as I am sure the Government intend.
	Given all that, I am left wondering why the amendment is not already in the Bill, and why it is unacceptable to the Government. I cannot foresee circumstances, unless they are brought about by the heavy hand of the Treasury, whereby the amendment should not be included in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us why it cannot be agreed to and under what circumstances he could envisage selling the Tote to a body other than an organisation set up exclusively for the benefit of racing.

Richard Caborn: Amendment No. 5 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that any purchaser of the Tote would use operating surpluses in the interests of racing, in effect guaranteeing the sale to a racing trust or something like it.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) tabled a similar amendment in Committee, as he said, and I repeat yet again that the Government intend to sell to a racing trust. That has always been our intention and it has been restated repeatedly, although it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
	Let us consider the circumstances in which we would not sell to a racing trust. We have heard many arguments about whether the Treasury, and the OFT in its recommendation, which is a matter of public record, are saying that there should be no exclusive licence and the Tote should be sold in the private marketplace. We took a view that that would be wrong. Let us put the Tote into perspective. About 20 per cent. of the Tote's business is the pool, and 80 per cent. is in fixed odds, which, to a large extent, is out there in the marketplace.
	I do not believe that the argument for amendment No. 5 has been made. The Government do not believe that we need such a provision in the Bill. We have always said that we want to sell the Tote to a racing trust. We have protected it for seven years and we have set up a shadow racing trust, with which we have had detailed negotiations and which is now in detailed negotiations with the Treasury.
	While the Bill was in Committee, I met representatives of the industry for other reasons, but I took up with them the point raised in Committee about the sale of the Tote to an outside body. Could anyone imagine that the industry, given the opportunity, with a seven-year protection and with all the safeguards that we have provided on the price, including the independent evaluation, would not be sold to a racing trust and that the profits would not go back into the industry?
	If the argument was that the Tote should be sold in the marketplace in order to obtain a better price, that could well take place. But all the actions that the Government have taken to date show that that is not the case and will not be the case. I can assure the House that the Government want to ensure that it goes to a racing trust.

James Paice: A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the argument for amendment No. 5 had not been made, but now he is making it himself. He is making precisely the point that we are making—namely, that the Tote should be sold to an organisation whose best interests are synonymous with those of racing. We do not doubt his intention, but if he is as determined as he says he is, all we ask is that that be included in the Bill.

Richard Caborn: We cannot include every hypothetical case in the Bill. To a large extent, that is what we were asked to do in Committee. The case for including this provision in the Bill has not been made, in view of the assurances that have been given and the actions that have been taken. The shadow trust has been set up and there have been negotiations and discussions with the industry. People in the real world—in the money markets and betting industry—believe in our intention to sell to a racing trust; only Conservative Members do not. The Tote and the industry asked for this action to be taken, and it has been under discussion for some considerable time.

Don Foster: The Minister says that he will not answer allegedly hypothetical questions, but he did so when he said:
	"If we cannot sell into a racing trust, and the House of Commons has said that it wants to sell the Tote, we will be in some difficulties. We would have a piece of legislation instructing us to sell the Tote, and we would therefore have to consider options."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 26.]
	Can he give us a clear assurance that if it is necessary to sell the Tote, it will not be sold to an organisation that has no intention of putting the profits back into racing? All that we want is a clear guarantee.

Richard Caborn: The industry has been given all the advantages of protection for seven years to ensure that it can go into the marketplace in an orderly way. We set up the shadow racing trust and worked with the industry to achieve that objective. We cannot accept the amendment, because the case for it has not been made.

Alex Salmond: Let us say that the right hon. Gentleman's excellent work as Minister for Sport is rewarded by a well-merited promotion to the higher echelons of Government, and that one of the young bloods from the Labour Back Benches who is daft enough to want to privatise the BBC is put in his place. What would happen to his guarantee, which I entirely believe he thinks is right and proper, if it was not in the Bill?

Richard Caborn: I took over this portfolio from previous Ministers, not only in my Department, but in the Home Office, and the commitment has been consistent throughout. It was a manifesto commitment, and we adhere to those. We set up the shadow trust, and our discussions with the industry clearly show that we have the same intentions. With that goodwill on both sides, we shall achieve our objective.
	It is playing with semantics to try to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: Given last week's events, I am slightly concerned when the Minister prays in aid his manifesto. He is renowned for his robust approach to life, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said from a sedentary position behind me, to lead with the chin in such a way is brave if not foolhardy. The Minister has told the House what actions that the Government have taken to enable the Tote to be sold to a shadow racing trust—to all of which I say "Hear, hear." The Government have given their word over and again that they want to sell to a racing trust. They have helped to set up a racing trust, they have entered into negotiations with the trust and they have repeated their intentions time and again. Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I accept the Minister's word as I accepted his predecessor's word.
	However, the Minister appears to have a blind spot. If all that I have said is the case, and if hon. Members of all parties take it as read, why cannot he accept the amendment? It does not go as far as to say that the Tote will be sold to the shadow racing trust; the Minister effectively says that it will be sold to a racing trust. If it is, I shall be delighted and Conservative Members will rejoice, but the Minister said on Second Reading and in Committee that we should not fetter the Government or tie their hands in negotiations. As I said earlier, the Minister said in Committee:
	"No one can give us a complete guarantee that racing will be in a position to buy it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 25.]
	Despite the fact that the Minister has spent the past few minutes trying to convince hon. Members of his utter determination to sell to a racing trust, he wants a way out and an opportunity to sell somewhere else if he cannot sell or negotiate the right deal. We all hope that that does not happen. The Minister accepts that there is a slight chance that a sale to a racing trust might not happen. I therefore ask only that if the Tote is not sold to a racing trust, it should be sold at least to an individual, a group or another organisation that will put the money back into racing.
	The Minister appears to have a blind spot about the amendment. Clearly, he will not change his position and we must therefore move to other amendments on which we may make progress. Perhaps I am over-optimistic, but I live in hope. However, I emphasise that the issue causes grave concern. I hope that when the Bill gets to another place, the Minister's colleague there will be able to report that negotiations have reached the stage when he can confirm that the sale is going ahead. If not, and if when the measure is debated in another place the position remains vague and negotiations have not progressed to the point of determination, my noble Friends will try to get the assurances that we have sought tonight.
	The race has only two possible outcomes and we will lose, at least on the figures if not on the argument. I cannot understand the Minister's refusal to put in the Bill the outcome that he is determined to persuade hon. Members will be achieved. However, he continues to refuse and, in the light of that refusal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 8
	 — 
	Exclusive licence

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
	'(1A) The exclusive licence shall, unless revoked under subsection (6), have effect for the period of seven years beginning with the date of issue.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendment No. 12.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 5, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert
	'any terms or conditions of the licence other than its duration.'
	Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 16 , leave out from 'Crown' to the end of line 17 and insert—
	'(c) shall require the Gaming Board prior to the expiry of the exclusive licence to offer for open competition a further exclusive licence for a fixed period provided that such a further exclusive licence shall only be granted to a body whose purpose in holding such a licence is to generate income for the support or improvement of horseracing, and
	(d) shall appoint prior to the expiry of the exclusive licence an independent inquiry to advise him whether a further exclusive licence should be issued and whether such a further licence, if issued, should be issued to the successor company or another body.'.
	Government amendment No. 13.
	Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).

Richard Caborn: The Government ask for amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 7 not to be pressed.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 spell out the length of the exclusive licence and remove its duration as one of the terms and conditions that the Secretary of State may specify when requiring the Gaming Board to issue a licence. We have repeatedly made it clear that any period of exclusivity would be for seven years, but I thought it best to leave the Secretary of State with discretion to issue a different length of licence if, for some reason, circumstances at the time of sale dictated it. It seems that our reassurances were not enough for some Opposition Members, and I agreed in Committee to consider amendments specifying the length of licence. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are intended to provide greater certainty for all concerned. Given that amendment No. 7 covers broadly the same ground as my amendments, I shall ask the Opposition not to press it.
	We cannot accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2. They introduce the possibility of exclusive licence renewability, although we have made it clear that the exclusive licence will be issued once and once only. The exclusive licence is a transitional measure to safeguard the existence of a strong pool betting market, and to allow the racing trust-owned successor an opportunity to establish itself in a fully commercial environment.
	If Members fear that racing will somehow suffer a loss of income when the exclusive licence period ends, I remind them that as long as it is owned by the trust, the successor company will generate an income for racing on the whole of its business, not just pool betting. The split between the pool and fixed-odds betting is roughly 20:80. That business will have been built up on the back of the security provided by the seven-year exclusive licence. I firmly believe that the successor company will have the opportunity within that time to do all that is necessary to secure an income stream for racing for years to come. There is no need to introduce the prospect of renewability when the Government will not take up that option.
	Amendment No. 13 will prevent the Secretary of State from revoking the exclusive licence after the successor company ceases to be owned by the Crown. Originally, we thought it wise to allow the Secretary of State a 14-day period in which to revoke the licence as a precautionary measure. It was always possible that something might come to light immediately after issue that would cause the Secretary of State to reconsider whether the licence should have been issued in the first place. However, given that the Gaming Board will retain the power of revocation, and in the light of amendments put forward in Committee that we agreed to consider, the Government propose amendment No. 13 to remove the Secretary of State's discretion in that respect.

James Paice: Far be it from me not to begin by thanking the Minister for fulfilling at least one undertaking that he gave in Committee—to specify the seven-year period in the Bill. I say that unequivocally. I think the Government have been hard pressed to find a justification for changing the wording of the amendment that we tabled in Committee, but I do not grumble about that. The fact remains that the Minister has agreed on the seven years, which I think all Members will welcome, although I remain puzzled as to why he should be happy to turn that undertaking into legal language while continuing to resist other proposals, including some that we have already debated today.
	I shall address my remarks mainly to amendment No. 1. Subject to the Minister's reply, I may wish to move the amendment formally after the debate on this group. What concerns me and, I believe, many other hon. Members, is what will happen after seven years. The Minister has repeated this afternoon his absolute determination that, come what may, there will be no exclusive licence after seven years. I understand that position, but I want again to put the counter-argument to him.
	When debating another group of amendments, Opposition Members referred to the uncertainties that surround the racing industry, including the Office of Fair Trading investigation, matters before the European Court and the renegotiation of the "Attheraces" contract, which involves media rights to 49 different racecourses. Those are great uncertainties, to which we could add the uncertainty over what will happen to the Tote. The Minister is right to say that seven years will provide time for the Tote to build its fortunes, to recoup the sum that it must borrow to purchase itself from the Government and to establish itself even more solidly in the pool betting marketplace. However, there is an issue of further developments. In Committee, the Minister rightly said that we could not have foreseen seven years ago that betting exchanges would even exist, let alone that they would have the volume of turnover and the impact not only on racing, but on all sports, that they now have. I put it to the House that similar uncertainty exists today. We cannot foresee what innovations in the next seven years, especially using modern communications technology, will put an entirely different complexion on the face of betting and gambling, and on pool betting in particular.
	In case the Minister misunderstands my intention, I stress that we are not suggesting that the Tote should have a licence for more than seven years, or that any extension of the licence should be given to the Tote after that period. I am advocating—I shall come to the detail in a moment—simply that before that seven-year period expires, there should be a reconsideration of whether a complete free-for-all in the pool betting market is in the best interests of racing and the consumer—that is, the punter. Consideration should therefore be given to whether a further exclusive licence should be issued to someone at that time.
	I am afraid that amendment No. 1 appears slightly differently on the amendment paper from how I intended it to appear, because I did not intend it to include two consecutive paragraphs. They were designed to be alternative paragraphs, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board when he responds. I am the first to recognise that as the amendment stands, its two paragraphs do not follow logically. I had tabled it to suggest alternative paragraphs, but because they referred to the identical part of the Bill, they have been transposed into one amendment. Be that as it may, the amendment's approach and the issue of competition are important.
	The amendment's paragraph (c) provides for the issue of a new exclusive licence at the end of seven years. As I have said, that would not necessarily be issued to the Tote; it could be issued to any organisation whose
	"purpose in holding such a licence is to generate income for the support or improvement of horseracing".
	What is clear in that is that there should be an open competition.
	In Committee, quite a lot of reference was made to the national lottery. The Minister sought to ridicule any comparison with the national lottery by saying that it was acquired by open competition. Yes, that is fine, and that is precisely what we propose: just as is the case when the lottery licence runs out, or prior to its running out, the Government or their agencies must decide on the basis of an open competition—just as they did before they decided to reissue the national lottery licence to Camelot, despite their manifesto undertakings, of which I hasten to remind the Minister—to whom to issue a further exclusive licence.
	Paragraph (d), which I had intended as an alternative approach, simply suggests that prior to the end of the seven years' exclusivity, an inquiry should take place into what has happened over those years in order to advise the Secretary of State whether it would be in the interests of racing and the punter to issue a further exclusive licence, and whether such a licence, if issued, should be issued to the holder of the licence—the Tote—or to somebody else.
	Those approaches were designed as alternatives, but the fundamental point is that we should not make the decision now when we do not know what the position will be in seven years' time. That period will allow the Tote to recoup its investment and to grow and develop, and it may provide it with the opportunity to compete with all comers in a new, free pool betting market, or it may not, if there have been developments in betting that will militate against that.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on Second Reading and others in Committee have argued that the more organisations that run pool betting systems, the more pools there are. The smaller the pools, the less attractive they are to punters. One wonders whether the national lottery would generate as much money for good causes—the analogy is with the generation of money from pool betting for racing—if instead of there being one national lottery, there were 10, and instead of jackpots of £2 million, £3 million or £5 million, there were jackpots of only £200,000. We need to make that comparison, as I fear that not as much interest may be generated if the pools are much smaller.
	I do not know, any more than the Minister does, what the situation will be in seven years' time. The difference between us, however, is that I am prepared to say that I do not know. I do not therefore believe that we should make the decision now, and it is not necessary to make it now. We can leave it for at least five years before having some sort of review. By contrast, the Minister insists that he knows what the situation will be in seven years' time, and that even if he does not know, and he has got it wrong, that does not matter because he is determined to go ahead and there will be no exclusive licence for pool betting. That could be disastrous for betting, racing and the punters.
	It is not too late for the Minister to reconsider. He referred in Committee to the fact that the cost-benefit analysis that we were given demonstrated that getting rid of an exclusive licence could seriously harm the Tote and could be a disbenefit to punters and the racing industry. Having accepted that in his published documents, he seems to be running away from that conclusion by saying that, come what may, the licence will be removed and there will be no further exclusive licence.
	I hope that the Minister will understand that the call for reconsideration is justified, and that we will need to look at what the picture is closer to the time when it really matters. No decision should be taken at the moment about the non-renewability of such an exclusive licence, which is why I tabled amendment No. 1, albeit in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the amendment paper, although its import is there. I look forward to the Minister's remarks, and subject to those I may want to press that amendment to a vote.

Don Foster: I referred earlier to the good nature of our deliberations on these issues in Committee and the fair amount of cross-party consensus. It is nice to see that reflected in a 1–1 score draw: the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendment to guarantee that profits from the Tote continued to go into racing, but I welcome his agreement to write the seven-year period into the Bill.
	Given the consensus, it would be churlish of me to criticise the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for suggesting that his was the amendment that first raised this matter in Committee, when in fact it was raised by the Liberal Democrats. Since we all agree with one another's amendments, who cares?
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we must take on the issue of the non-renewability of the seven-year exclusive licence, and whether it really makes sense. As the Minister knows only too well, we debated the issue exhaustively in Committee, but all the evidence that we heard then unfortunately points absolutely and inexorably in one direction alone, and to have no renewal at the end of seven years, regardless of what may have happened, strikes me as completely crazy.
	Those listening to our deliberations, or joining in them for the first time, may wonder why these issues are so important. They may not be aware of the huge importance of racing in this country, as both a business and a sport. We know that 6 million people went racing last year and that 100,000 are employed in the industry. We also know that the Tote is a large organisation with a turnover of some £900 million. What happens to the Tote, and whether it continues to support racing, which we hope it will, is an important issue.
	Everyone acknowledges that it will be difficult for the new owners to establish themselves under the new arrangements, and if we are to ensure that they continue to put money back into racing, that seven-year period is vital, but the real question is what will happen at the end of that time. All the evidence points to cause for concern if the Tote's operation is then put into the open market, as the Government clearly intend.
	The Minister himself said, in a press release of 27 November last year, under the heading, "Tote wins seven year licence to operate horserace pool betting":
	"we also believe a reasonable period of preparation is necessary in order to safeguard the revenue racing receives from the Tote and its successor is necessary in order to"—
	It seems that the quotation I have here is incorrect. Perhaps it needs to be checked in Hansard. However, the press release made it clear that the seven-year period is necessary to safeguard the money going into racing.
	If the competitive market comes in after the seven-year period, there will be great uncertainty about what will happen. We all know that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this area. On Second Reading, he said:
	"I find it rather strange that anyone should imagine that opening up pool betting to competition helps the punter, because the whole point of pool betting is that the bigger the pool, the more attractive it is to the punter. The greater the competition and the more pools there are, the less attractive it is to the punter. The logic of that, of course, is that I personally would prefer it if we retained an exclusive licence indefinitely".—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 453.]
	Page 22 of the Government's own regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that the loss of exclusivity could lead to the loss of pool betting at some race meetings and race courses, and to lower Tote contributions to racing. Some 10 years ago, the Home Affairs Committee came to a very similar conclusion. So there is real cause for concern as to what will happen at the end of seven years.
	As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has eloquently made clear, we have no idea what the situation will be in seven years time. The Minister himself drew our attention on several occasions to the new Bill on gambling, pointing out that it will be very difficult to deal with because of the huge changes that are taking place in the industry. They are taking place not just because of betting exchanges, but because of many other factors.
	It is worth reflecting on what the Minister said during our deliberations in Standing Committee:
	"We are trying to protect the Tote. The first step is to put it partially into the marketplace, giving it more freedoms and making sure that it can develop in a more robust way. Hopefully"—
	we should note the use of the word "hopefully"—
	"seven years from now, it will be able to stand in the market place without further protection and with exclusivity."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 44.]
	We do not know what the situation will be, but the Minister says that "hopefully", that will be the situation. If he wants to support racing and to protect the Tote's future, surely he should agree to these very simple amendments, which would enable us to see how matters have progressed in a few years' time, and to decide whether we should renew the licence at the end of seven years.

John Redwood: Like Government Members and other Opposition Members, I welcome the Government's decision to specify the term of the exclusive licence. Should my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) catch your eye before the summing up of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would appreciate a little more guidance from him on amendment No. 1. I am grateful to him for explaining that proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d) are alternatives; that makes matters much clearer. I should point out that I am much more attracted to the latter than the former, and I shall briefly sketch why.
	My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in saying to the Minister that no one can be sure what the situation will be in seven years' time. The technology might have moved on, the market might have changed greatly, or new circumstances might have arisen that make our deliberations today rather inappropriate, in terms of specifying what should then happen. So I can quite see the wisdom of warning the Minister against reaching a decisive view today that will operate in seven years' time, perhaps under a completely different Government and certainly under a different Minister. Indeed, many other changes might have taken place by then in the world of gambling and gaming, and in the general marketplace.
	I accept the idea, advanced by my hon. Friend, that there should be a requirement for some kind of independent inquiry. I understand that they are very popular these days, although people are not always pleased with, or in agreement with, their results. Proposed new subsection 1(d) does not specify what the successor Minister or Secretary of State should do with the inquiry, but I trust that my hon. Friend has in mind an independent inquiry that will guide, rather than mandate.

Kevin Brennan: If an independent inquiry were agreed to, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to abide by its outcome?

John Redwood: Not necessarily. First, I should want to decide what I thought of its terms of reference and of the so-called independent members. In my experience, some inquiries are more independent than others, and some terms of reference more sensibly drafted than others. Therein lies the fun of inquiries and what happens afterwards. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is signalling that the inquiry is advisory—to me, the best type of inquiry—and I would like a future Minister to be free to take a wise decision based on decent information. On that basis, it is sensible for a future Minister to appoint good and independent people, who really know the industry and understand the relevant circumstances, to offer the advice.
	I can therefore bring myself to support amendment No. 1, if my hon. Friend decides to press it, but I hope that he will stress paragraph (d) rather than (c), which has the same problem as the Minister's original recommendation—that it somehow pre-empts or pre-judges what might be wise in seven years' time and that it implies rather more foresight than some of us have at this juncture of the state of horse racing and the betting industry then. On that basis, I welcome my hon. Friend's clarification and look forward to supporting paragraph (d) if the amendment is pressed.

Alex Salmond: I thank the Minister for the seven-year guarantee. I also thank Conservative Front Benchers for clarifying amendment No. 1. I only wish I had known that this morning; I would have been saved 45 minutes trying to puzzle out what they had in mind. Nevertheless, the burden of argument is in favour of the Minister allowing at least the possibility of maintaining the exclusive licence for more than seven years.
	In explaining my case, I want to look at the issue from a slightly different angle. Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly stressed the importance of the Tote in providing a guaranteed fund for the racing industry. That has been valuable and is something that by and large the Tote has done extremely well over its period of existence. However, there is another role of pool betting that has not been done so well until very recently but which is none the less very important in the current marketplace: pool betting operated as a monopoly increases overall competition in the betting market. It would be useful if people working in the Office of Fair Trading managed to grasp the point that it is possible to provide a more perfect marketplace and more protection for the consumer by allowing an intervention in the marketplace of that sort.
	I realise that the subject is exercising the Minister's mind. It may be helpful to view what has been happening in the betting market as a form of contract between the Government and the players in that market. A few years ago, when the Government took betting tax off, they entered into an informal contract with the industry by which it would move into the world of low margins and high turnover and that would be to everyone's benefit: it would be to the benefit of the Government because the high turnover would generate revenues; it would be to the benefit of the consumer—the punter—because they would get better value from their betting; and it would be to the benefit of the companies operating in the marketplace. Unfortunately, as human nature dictates, some people liked the high turnover aspect of the market, but would also like high margins.
	There are three bulwarks that operate against the margins in the United Kingdom being increased to the extent that they could be over the Irish sea or in other betting and horseracing markets in the world. The first is the on-course bookmakers who, lo and behold, are now under sustained pressure from other forces in the industry. They operate a market on course, which gives protection to the off-course market and keeps the business honest in the sense of keeping the margins down. I do not think that it is any coincidence that these people are now under the severest pressure.
	The second bulwark to keep the off-course market honest is the new emergence of betting exchanges—and, lo and behold, those betting exchanges are now subjected to successive pressure from big bookmakers' chains, challenging various aspects of their operations. To his credit, the Minister has thus far resisted that pressure.
	The third bulwark that keeps the market honest is the Tote, and Tote betting and pool betting, as an alternative to fixed-odd betting. It is unsurprising that Ladbroke's, for example, has already made it clear that, at the end of the seven-year licence, it wants to move into the pool betting market. With no disrespect to anyone in the company, which presumably wants to maximise its returns, it will do so not with the interests of the consumer and punter in mind, but in the interests of fragmenting the pool betting market and making it a less competitive instrument, thereby increasing margins in the fixed-price market.
	As the Minister rightly said, even for the Tote, the balance between overall operations and pool betting is currently 4:1, and the balance is more like 10:1 for broad operations in the betting market. We need a more powerful pool betting market to act as better protection for the consumer, rather than a less powerful one. In the interest of consumer sovereignty and to prevent cartels and organised behaviour developing in the betting market to the detriment of everyone—in addition to generating income for racing—I hope that the Minister will think it sensible at least to provide for the possibility that the guaranteed licence should continue after the seven-year period has expired.

Richard Page: I shall begin by thanking the Minister for introducing Government amendment No. 11. In Committee, he coyly—and rather delphically—said:
	"I am minded that complete certainty about its length would be welcomed by the racing industry, the Tote and members of Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 42.]
	I wondered what would emerge at the end of the day, so I am exceedingly grateful for Government amendment No. 11.
	Government amendment No. 11 is an important datum peg in the valuation process. As the Bill progresses through this House to the other place and back again, I urge the Minister to consider putting other datum pegs in place. When it comes to valuing the Tote, it will useful to know what sort of licence fee the Government will require. He will appreciate that a higher licence fee will mean a lower sum to Government, and that a lower licence fee could possibly mean a higher sum to Government. The more datum pegs we have, the easier it will be to calculate the valuation. I know that the Tote, among others, would welcome knowing what its possible commitment might be.
	I also congratulate the Government—the habit of congratulating them sits ill upon my shoulders—on once more resisting the pressures of the OFT and its arguments for open competition for pool betting. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made some valid points about the value of pool betting. I do not want to give hon. Members or, in particular, my constituents the idea that I am a habitual gambler, but one can see pool betting operate at a greyhound race meeting. If a dog—let us say Saucy Sue in track 2—is 6:1 and I rush forward and place a £2 each-way bet, suddenly that dog is odds on favourite and my £2 each-way bet has had a disproportionate effect. Obviously, larger pools offer greater stability, which we all want to see. With larger pools, punters have greater confidence that they are getting a fair market price rather than one that has been distorted by a small amount of money such as my £2 each way.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend has greater experience of these matters than me—generally—so he will know that that does not just happen at a poorly attended dog track; it can also happen at a fairly poorly attended horserace meeting.

Richard Page: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and emphasises how appalling it would be if there were so many pools that they became little puddles and the odds became farcical.
	I shall continue with the theme of what will happen after those seven years. I am not that exercised about the European Union's reaction to the monopolies that may occur in pool betting. The French have a strong monopoly and I cannot see them giving it up lightly and easily because some commission or other says something, and we should take a degree of comfort from that.
	Commission or no commission, the Bill says that competition will be allowed after seven years, which is fine in theory, but the questions just keep rolling on. Would new entrants have to form duplicate racing trusts for their money to benefit racing?
	Would courses have to take compulsory extra kiosks to sit alongside the Tote kiosks? As pool betting expands, will there be a licence fee? How would that be calculated? Would racecourse associations want that? Would pool sizes be regulated in any way? The prospects for the situation after seven years are murky, to say the least.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates huge expertise in these matters, but he will know that the process could be more insidious than he suggests. When the Tote and large bookmaking chains were in an organisation called Tote Direct, the chains were reluctant to see the Tote provide better value for the consumer to maintain margins in the pool market. It might even transpire, after seven years, that the cost of non-intervention in the marketplace is to increase the margins—to the detriment of customers.

Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the route ahead, in seven years' time, is indeed, let us say, unclear. I shall stand down at the next election, which will no doubt be welcomed by many people, especially my successor, but we should endeavour either to answer the questions now or to refuse to tie the hands of those people who will take on the job in the future.
	I am not sure how my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will deal with amendment No. 1, because it contains two alternatives in paragraphs (c) and (d), but I shall support him whatever he does.

James Paice: What a happy coincidence. Should I be fortunate enough to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall attempt to move paragraph (d) of amendment No. 1, excluding paragraph (c). I accept that they are mutually contradictory: they were meant to be two separate amendments.

Richard Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he may have set a trend. We can table a host of different provisions under one amendment and then mix and match to get the right one, depending on the outcome of the debate—even though that might make it difficult for the Minister, who would need an omnibus brief.
	My great expertise in gambling has been mentioned, but it has not benefited my lifestyle. However, I serve on the gambling review committee, which is considering all aspects of the changes in gambling in this country. As part of that, we are considering the future form of the Gambling Commission, which will take over from the Gaming Board and will have many more powers and strengths. I shall not ask the Minister to accept my hon. Friend's omnibus amendment, because that would be a bridge too far, but it would be helpful if the Minister could make one of his Delphic announcements—as he did on the seven-year licence—about considering the future of pool betting after seven years in some shape or form as the Bill progresses through the House. We do not want to tie the hands of those who will address the issue in seven years' time on the basis of the imperfect knowledge that we have today. We need to see how successfully the Tote operates in the market, and then we can decide.
	My hon. Friend's omnibus amendment No. 1 mentions an "independent inquiry", and I wonder whether the Gambling Commission could be asked to consider the issue and advise as necessary. I hope that the Minister agrees that my hon. Friend has made a valuable point.

Jim Sheridan: I was disappointed to hear that the hon. Gentleman is standing down at the next election. I certainly hope that he enjoys a longer retirement than some of the horses and dogs that are retired from racing and finish up as sausagemeat.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to an independent inquiry. In view of the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about honesty and integrity in the horseracing business, perhaps there should be such an inquiry, as more punters, or consumers, would be attracted if they felt that the industry was honest. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned odds-on favourites. On Saturday, there were more winners at 66:1, 33:1 or 20:1 than odds-on favourites, so surely we should have an independent inquiry into who sets the prices and into how corrupt the horseracing and greyhound businesses are.

Richard Page: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to account if I were to go through the list set out by the hon. Gentleman. It is not only inaccurate but highly emotive. The hon. Gentleman is not inaccurate, however, about the need to care for greyhounds and horses that can no longer race. I am with him 100 per cent. on that point. I sincerely hope that those animals do not end up as sausage meat—at least for the UK market, as that would cause a considerable outcry. There is support for a number of establishments that retrain racehorses and there are other organisations that give homes to greyhounds. Animal welfare is becoming a greater priority and I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
	On the hon. Gentleman's other point, however, I have to say that the nature of betting is such that there are not more winners at 33:1 than at odds-on favourite. That is a statistical guarantee. If he wants me to give him a lesson on how to lose money through betting, I am only too willing to do so, but those 33:1 winners do not come up with the frequency that he imagines.
	I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is the right one, and I hope that the Minister can give us a little comfort in his response and tell us that the amendment will be considered as the Bill progresses.

Richard Caborn: Yet again, we are rehearsing our arguments in Committee. For the sake of clarity, I shall address one or two things that seem to have got mixed up during the debate.
	We want a secure revenue stream for racing through the Tote. After seven years, I do not know whether the Tote will operate purely through the pool or through fixed odds betting. Who knows? The world changes, and we have already seen tremendous change in the industry, so the Tote may go in for betting exchanges. I do not know, but one thing is certain—if it wants to do that, it can, because we are giving it all the opportunities available to the private sector actors in the industry. We are raising the public sector constraints, so that the Tote has every opportunity.
	The management of the Tote is second to none and, with a well-run trust and the new freedoms, I would expect it to create, over seven years with some protection, a business that will be able to enter the marketplace and guarantee a funding stream for the industry. Concern has been expressed about that point, but we are ensuring seven years of protection so that the Tote can enter the marketplace effectively.
	It is interesting to hear some Opposition Members, especially the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who has always been the great advocate of the marketplace, coming up with support for protectionism. In effect, that is what he is proposing. He has probably spoken up for the marketplace more often than anyone else on the Opposition Benches, but he will go into the Lobby, contrary to his ideological beliefs, in support of even more protection than the seven years on which we all agree. Had we not agreed to that seven-year period—had we not discussed it in Departments and given that guarantee—we would not have been debating these provisions. Furthermore, I would not have been able to include the seven-year provision in the Bill, because there was tremendous pressure to go straight into the marketplace, pool betting and all, including the Tote as it stands.
	All that I say to hon. Members is that we took a lot of time to reach an agreement on the seven-year period—first in government and then with the industry—and we believe that it will give the Tote the opportunity to go into the marketplace, and that it will ensure that there will be a future revenue stream for racing.

John Redwood: It is a pity that the Minister decided to make an inaccurate partisan point. I had urged my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) to gravitate from paragraph (c) in amendment No. 1 towards paragraph (d) and thus move the provision in a more market-oriented direction. I want one of the independent inquiry's terms of reference to be to consider how to ensure that the market can operate in the interest of customers. The question is how that could be best designed, given the way in which pool betting and betting in general operate. The Minister is being a little naughty in suggesting that I am trying to get away from the market, because I want an effective market.

Richard Caborn: That is a somewhat obscure interpretation of what paragraph (c) of amendment No. 1 would bring about—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to say paragraph (d). Conservative Members have got me confused by the number of amendments that have been tabled. We are debating whether we can have a continued revenue stream into racing.

Kelvin Hopkins: I welcome the seven-year provision. I speak as one who has spent far too much of his money at the Tote—indeed, I have contributed to it over many years at the Cheltenham festival and elsewhere. I have trusted the Tote. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need a public inquiry? The seven-year period will give the Government, his Department and the House plenty of time to assess how the system is working and will allow possible adjustments to Government policy if necessary.

Richard Caborn: May I repeat again that the Government believe that the decision is right? Eighty per cent. of the Tote's business is not the pool; it is fixed-odds betting out in the marketplace where it competes with all the other bookies. I do not know whether that percentage will change over the next seven years—it is entirely up to the Tote, as an organisation. The significant difference between the Tote and companies such as Ladbrokes and William Hill is that its profit will go back to the racing industry through a racing trust. We should protect that revenue stream back to racing, and I have every faith in the Tote.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Richard Caborn: Let me go on. If we move to the end of the seven-year period, what will we be left with? Let us assume that we had the status quo and that the ratio was still 80:20. We would not be selling the Tote into the marketplace, but the pool. The Tote would still have all its shops and its brand, and it would be in the marketplace to bid with any other firm for 20 per cent. of its business. That is what we are talking about.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister address what I said about the Tote acting to keep the rest of the market honest for consumers? As I was listening to the tale of woe about Saturday from the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), it struck me that I probably should have declared an interest—I now willingly do that. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the sensible advice in my racing column on Saturday, he would be feeling a lot better today.

Richard Caborn: I do not want to get involved in the internal politics of Scotland.
	On the 20 per cent. figure, I genuinely hope that the pool will grow under the new arrangements. I hope that the constraints that we will take away from the Tote will mean that it may market the pool aspect of its business more aggressively. There is every argument for the point that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made—it was strongly made when we received advice to sell the Tote into the marketplace on day 1. We believed that it was necessary to put the Tote in a position in which it could grow its business, including, hopefully, the pool aspect of it.
	I, for one, would like that to happen so that we bring a countervailing force to fixed-odd betting. It is good for the punter and the marketplace. That is why lifting the constraints off the Tote so that it can aggressively market its portfolio should allow the pool part of its business to grow, probably even against that fixed-odd betting.

Tony Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why racing is so popular is television coverage? "Attheraces", which covers almost all races, gives tremendous coverage, people become interested and go on to watch racing at meetings. Is he not concerned that by 29 March "Attheraces" might stop covering horse racing? There is even a threat that the grand national will not be covered on television. If we lose that coverage, people might lose interest. Is he worried that that could change the circumstances surrounding the industry?

Richard Caborn: It could. We have been trying to bring certainty to the industry and I hope that the seven-year licence for the Tote will bring stability. Indeed, the concession to include that in the Bill is a continuation of our attempt to achieve stability. The industry is very important and has a tremendous effect on the rural economy. I hope that people who are negotiating in the industry will take note of the signs that are coming out of the Government.
	The case has not been made for amendment No. 1. The Bill ensures that the revenue stream continues into racing because the Tote will be sold into a racing trust. We have given assurances in government and beyond on the seven-year period. It was part of the negotiations on whether we put the Tote straight into the marketplace or allow it to reposition itself under the seven-year licence and then expose the pool part of it to the marketplace.

James Paice: I emphasise that we are not necessarily talking about a subsequent licensing of the Tote. The amendment suggests that there should be an inquiry on whether a single exclusive licence should operate pool betting. That is not necessarily related to the Tote, but is in the interests of the overall gambling market, to which several hon. Members referred. The issue of a single pool is important. We simply suggest that we should not make the decision now, but leave it to an inquiry in five or six years' time.

Richard Caborn: There have been inquiries into the pool. The competition authority in Europe has been involved. The Office of Fair Trading clearly recommended that the pool should be sold into the marketplace and that it was for the marketplace to decide whether it should stay as a single pool or be broken up. We took a slightly different view and wanted a halfway house. Discussions in Whitehall led us to believe that the Tote needed some protection so that it could reposition itself by moving from the public sector to the private sector under a seven-year exclusive licence. That was the agreement and we will stick to it. Had we not settled on that, we would not have been able to discuss the amendments.
	There is a strong rationale to the agreement. It gives the industry a revenue stream and the punter choice after seven years. It also gives the Tote, as a business, opportunities that it could never have had when it was in the public sector. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) not to press amendment No. 1 to a vote.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 12, in page 5, leave out from beginning of line 10 to 'terms' in line 11.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to amendment No. 1 to be moved formally. As there has been a printing error, I shall read out the text of the amendment to be moved so that the House is clear. It is as follows:
	"in page 5, line 16, leave out from 'Crown' to the end of line 17 and insert . . . 'shall appoint prior to the expiry of the exclusive licence an independent inquiry to advise him whether a further exclusive licence should be issued and whether such a further licence, if issued, should be issued to the successor company or another body."
	Amendment proposed—[Mr. Paice.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 136, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: No. 13, in page 5, line 44 [Clause 8], leave out from 'Crown,' to end of line 47.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 10
	 — 
	Control when no exclusive licence

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
	'(3) Sections 281 and 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (increases in maximum terms of imprisonment) shall apply to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c. 2) as amended by this section.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 to 18.

Richard Caborn: Amendment No. 19 is a small technical amendment. It will ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will apply to the offences inserted in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by the Bill in respect of unlawful pool betting and the submission of accounts for Gaming Board scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 deal with the period within which pool operators will be obliged to submit their accounts.
	Once the exclusive licence comes to an end, anyone with a bookmaker's permit will be able to carry on pool betting business, subject to some requirements, the most significant of which is compliance with the regulatory regime set out in schedule 1, which will become schedule 1A to the 1963 Act.
	Under part 3 of schedule 1A bookmakers will be required to submit monthly pool betting accounts to a supervising accountant, and this requirement must be complied with within seven days of the end of the month to which the accounts relate.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) tabled an amendment in Committee to extend that period from seven to 28 days, and I agreed to consider it, but I awaited further evidence from the Tote to support its concerns that seven days was not sufficient.
	After the point was raised in Committee, the Tote explained why it would be difficult for it to comply with the provisions as drafted. I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate to extend the period to 28 days, which is achieved by amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

James Paice: That makes it 2:1.

Richard Caborn: I turn to amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. On Second Reading I announced the extension of the levy until 2006. I am pleased that that was well received by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I believe that it brought certainty to the industry. We fully expect that the Tote will have been sold by that date, so consequential amendments need to be made to existing legislation in respect of the Tote's role in the levy negotiations. We see no place for the privately owned successor company on the levy board, so amendment No. 16 removes the seat on the board held by the current Tote chairman, who will not be replaced on the board.
	However, so long as the successor company is being run in the interests of racing, pursuant to the exclusive licence, we see benefit in allowing it to retain the Tote's ability to negotiate the levy separately from other bookmakers, because that will give it an effective way to make its contribution to racing. Should the levy system outlive the exclusive licence, the provisions make it clear that the successor company will be assessed for levy in the same way as any other bookmaker.
	I hope that hon. Members find the amendments acceptable.

James Paice: I welcome amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and thank the Minister for reconsidering the amendments that we tabled in Committee and recognising the validity of our case by changing the period for the submission of accounts from seven days to 28 days.
	As the Minister said, amendment No. 19 is technical.
	On amendment No. 16, the Minister referred to the removal of the Tote chairman from the levy board. I understand his reasoning, but when will that actually happen? We are in a state of flux. We do not know precisely when the Tote will be sold, although we hope that it might be soon. We know that the levy board will be wound up in 2006, subject to the next group of amendments. However, it is not clear when the amendment will take effect. Will the Tote chairman remain on the levy board until such time as the Tote is sold? The amendment does not specify a date, but implies that he will be removed as soon as the Act comes into force, which might predate the sale of the Tote. Subject to that clarification, I am happy with the amendments.

Richard Caborn: The provision will become operational when the Tote is sold. I understand from the lawyers that that is about fairness. When the Tote goes into the marketplace, the chairman forgoes his right to be on the levy board.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Abolition of levy

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 26, at end insert—
	'(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under section 15(1)(d) providing for the Horserace Betting Levy Board to cease to exist unless the order also makes provision, or an earlier order under section 15(1) has made provision, for a "transfer scheme" under this section.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 7 [Clause 16], leave out 'have effect' and insert
	'shall not have effect until—
	(a) the Secretary of State has published a report of the outcome of the consideration by the Office of Fair Trading into the arrangements for the sale of data and media rights by the British Horseracing Board and
	(b) the scheme has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.

James Paice: The amendments deal with the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. That has caused a considerable amount of debate in this House and in Committee, as well as in the racing industry. As I said on Second Reading, not everybody connected with horse racing is entirely happy with the Government's proposals to abolish the levy and the levy board—the bookmaking industry certainly is not, and has argued the case for retaining it. Conservative Members accept that the levy is somewhat anachronistic, as is the Government's involvement in determining it, given that the system is being moved closer to the marketplace. That is right, so we support the measure in principle.
	We should bear in mind, however, that the racing industry is in a state of tremendous uncertainty and flux, particularly in relation to the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, the rule 14 notice that the OFT served last April, and the continuing discussions between the OFT and the industry on whether the industry can adjust its modus operandi and structure to meet the OFT's concerns without the rule 14 notice having to be enforced. It is widely believed throughout the industry that if the OFT maintains that stance, it will lead to a significant reduction in racing's income from the commercial sale of data, which would have a knock-on effect on the number of race courses and the number of jobs in the racing industry. The OFT's stance is based on its odd contention that it is perfectly acceptable for bookmakers to operate en bloc in negotiating for data rights, but unacceptable for race courses to do likewise. I find that argument difficult to accept, and I believe that the Minister shares my doubts; nevertheless, that is the situation.
	Further uncertainty is created by the consideration by the European Court of Justice of the case brought by the bookmakers. Given the way in which matters proceed in that court, it could be a long time before there is any outcome. Another factor is the renegotiation of the commercial arrangements between "Attheraces" and 49 race courses for the sale of media rights. I do not think that that is as much of a doomsday scenario as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) suggested, and it is of course an entirely commercial negotiation—it is not a matter for the Government to get involved with, nor should it be—but it clearly adds to the significant uncertainty.
	It is essential that in passing the Bill, the House does not make matters worse by adding to the uncertainty. That is why, despite my support for the principle of ending the levy, I believe that we should have another bite at the cherry. Without wishing to repeat the confusion that arose in respect of the earlier group, I must point out that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 offer two alternative approaches, on the basis that there is then a greater chance that one of them might be acceptable to the Government. That is probably wishful thinking, but it is nevertheless an option.

David Heath: It is an each-way bet.

James Paice: If they come in first and second, I shall be delighted, but knowing my luck it is not very likely.
	Amendment No. 3 proposes that when the Secretary of State places before the House the order for the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, as is required by clause 15(1), it should contain the details of the transfer scheme that is part and parcel of the disposal of the board and its property, assets, rights and liabilities.
	Amendment No. 4, as a pick-your-own alternative, suggests that before any transfer scheme could take effect, the Secretary of State should publish a report on the outcome of the OFT's consideration of the arrangements for the sale of data and media rights by the British Horseracing Board, and that the transfer scheme should then be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
	The purpose of both amendments is to give the House time to consider the issue. We hope that we shall soon know the outcome of the negotiations with the OFT—the most significant of the variables to which I referred.
	The Minister properly reminded us that he has agreed to continue the levy for a further year beyond what was originally envisaged. Everybody in the racing industry welcomes that decision because it means that the levy board will not be wound up until autumn 2006, and that the levy will end at the end of March 2006. That means that the fixture list for 2005 can be developed in the coming months in the knowledge of the income for that year. Nevertheless, the uncertainty beyond that is significant and I therefore suggest that, as we all hope that the OFT deliberations will be concluded later this year—I hope speedily, but it may be some months yet—it would be wrong to give the Government carte blanche to dispose of the levy board, and for the Secretary of State to have complete authority over the transfer scheme for its assets and its property. That right should not be given at this stage because we do not know what may happen.
	The Minister has clearly and repeatedly said that he intends to end the levy. I understand and accept his determination to do that, but before giving the final say-so, and before giving the Secretary of State total power to decide what happens to the assets through the transfer scheme, the House should be entitled to the opportunity to reflect on the outcome of the OFT investigation. If the rule 14 notice stands and the negotiating powers of the race courses break down as was suggested last April, racing could experience a significant diminution of income—much greater than was envisaged when the original idea to dispose of the levy was devised.
	The levy raises a considerable sum of money, and if racing lost the income from it at the same time as facing a reduction in its anticipated income from the sale of data, it would be catastrophic for the industry. I therefore advocate that before the final decision to wind up the levy board is made—right as it may be in principle—hon. Members should have the opportunity to reflect on it and preferably consider a report. If we cannot consider a report, I hope that we can at least be fully cognisant of the outcome of the OFT investigation. It is right and proper for all of us who are concerned about the long-term financial welfare of racing to be pretty clear that it will have a continuing income stream. Once the levy goes, there should be a replacement stream from commercial activities. If the OFT decides that that income stream should be significantly less—or will inevitably become significantly less—than that from the levy, hon. Members should have the opportunity to reconsider the matter.
	I have outlined the purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are a pick-and-mix—two alternative arrangements—but I hope that the Minister will allow the House an opportunity to consider whether and how to wind up the levy board and transfer its assets once we know the resolution of some of the uncertainties that currently beset the industry. If the Government decide to plough on regardless of the outcome of the OFT decision, and that decision is to uphold last year's rule 14 notice, it is possible that racing, race goers and punters will suffer considerably. That would be not only regrettable but a sad indictment of the Government's attitude, given their generally well-meaning intentions. I hope that they will give hon. Members an opportunity to consider the matter further before making the final decision.

Don Foster: Hon. Members will know that until the 1960s there was an informal arrangement whereby money was transferred from bookmakers to racing. However, in the 1960s it was decided that the agreement should be more formalised, and the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the accompanying levy were established. The levy has been important to the sport and industry of racing.
	Some £70 million a year is transferred from the levy to horse racing for uses that are more wide ranging than some might suspect. Some of the money is used to improve veterinary medicine and education. That is clearly welcome. Some is used to develop horse breeding and some for an additional purpose, which the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) eloquently described in Committee, when he said:
	"I stand on concrete steps under a corrugated iron roof, the rain drips down, it is windy and I think, 'I really am enjoying this.' This is where the levy board plays an important part. Over the years, it has been responsible for seeing many of our race courses upgraded because it wants to make racing more enjoyable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 January 2004; c. 68.]
	Expenditure on improving race courses throughout the country has been important and played its part in the significant increase in recent years in the number of people who go racing. There is a good reason for the levy, and a large benefit has accrued from it.
	Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire admitted on behalf of the Conservative party, and Liberal Democrat Members also acknowledge, the time has come for the Government to stand aside from interference in the relationship between the bookies and racing. We need to find an alternative. However, we need to be sure that whatever alternative is adopted, it will continue to ensure revenue streams of at least the current order of magnitude for racing, and the range of benefits that I described.
	In Committee, and here today, hon. Members of all parties have expressed the concern that the OFT's interference through the rule 14 notice, and the further complication of a European Court case that is currently being considered, mean that there is no certainty about what the future may hold, and what could replace the levy and the money that it brings to racing. It is therefore eminently sensible to have some mechanism whereby we can determine the most appropriate way forward. Since we do not know what that will be, it is sensible to include a provision that ensures that there will be an opportunity to decide to end the levy board and the levy only when we know the alternative and are convinced that it will make sense in terms of the benefits that it brings to racing.
	In Committee, several alternative formulations were presented. The Minister accepted none. He has generously been given not one but two possible options to consider. I hope that he will accept at least one—or possibly both, in keeping with the belt-and-braces approach of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. We already have two victories to one; I hope that that number will increase before long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Richard—I am sorry, I cannot remember—

Richard Page: Page.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg your pardon, Mr. Page.

Richard Page: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

James Paice: Is my hon. Friend not retiring soon?

Richard Page: Indeed, it is lucky that I am going.
	I do not think there is any disagreement about the value of the levy board's work. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned my brief contribution on Second Reading, thus adding to my already growing reputation as a gambler and habitué of the race course. Indeed, I am seldom in the House; it is lucky that I am here today—and no doubt it is because I am nearly always at the race course that you could not remember my name, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be extremely fortunate if I am called by you again in the next year.
	I am sympathetic to the Secretary of State's wish to get rid of his obligations and responsibilities in respect of the levy. I see no point in involving Government in commercial negotiations and arrangements such as this, and I think all Members would agree with me on that. The problem is that the existing system incorporates a security of supply. We may not like that—the industry may periodically engage in internecine warfare over the calculation of the levy—but at the end of the day there is that security. We surely all agree that the levy must remain. I do not think that any faction in racing disputes the value of that; the factions disagree merely on how much they must put in to that value.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) hinted at a few of the existing problems, such as media rights and what the Office of Fair Trading may do. Such things could put that security of supply in doubt. We need a commercial arrangement that does not involve the Government, but we also need to retain the security. My hon. Friend—who has initiated a trend for mixing and matching amendments so that we can choose whatever we fancy—has identified an important point: until we know for certain what the security arrangements will be after the OFT's intervention and after privatisation, we need to keep our options open. I do not understand why the Minister wants to exclude so many possibilities at this stage. I hope that he will consider the amendments and—putting his hand either on his heart or on his wallet—will say, "Trust me; I'll come up with something as the Bill proceeds."

Alex Salmond: I shall not repeat all the arguments that have already been advanced, but I agree with them. I know from what the Minister said in Committee that he recognises the dilemma that confronts everyone—not least him. This is, however, a bad time at which to legislate. The parameters of market power in the industry are yet to be set. The industry has had considerable success lately: its attendance levels are the highest for many generations, many aspects of it are flourishing, and there is a competitive betting market. It would be extraordinary if, by dint of regulation, interference or not thinking carefully enough, we upset a balance of power that is healthy and necessary.
	It is natural that various interests should try to secure a dominant position in the industry. We need only consider greyhound racing, with which one Member seemed to be remarkably familiar. We should bear in mind what happens when bookmaking interests are in a position to control the industry, to the detriment of others—not least the consumer, or punter. I fear that the fundamental lack of understanding of the balance of forces to which I have referred among people at the OFT might create a similar imbalance in horse racing. I accept that the Minister is in a difficult position, but, although he has expressed sympathy, he has not explained why the OFT seems unable to understand that such an imbalance would be created by allowing the buying of rights while disallowing the selling of rights. That is a strange conundrum.

Richard Page: I accept all that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that the OFT has been given powers that are aimed strictly in one direction? They are intended to introduce competition, and the side effects are barely considered. Is it not time that the Government took powers to rein in future OFT activities?

Alex Salmond: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, along with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), agrees that for the sake of a better marketplace—and, incidentally, for the sake of a sport that is part of that marketplace—it is sometimes necessary not to prevent restraint, but to take a common-sense view of the balance of powers within the market. Scotland has five race courses, all run independently in different ways as relatively small organisations. It would be extraordinary to think that those courses, individually, could be in a good negotiating position, able to face the might of not one large bookmaking company but—possibly—all the companies acting in concert. It would be an extraordinary act to leave individual race courses, in Scotland or elsewhere, at the mercy of such negotiation.

Alan Meale: Perhaps, having reflected on the speech that preceded his and on the statement that everyone in racing was entirely au fait and satisfied with what had happened to the levy board and its distribution, the hon. Gentleman would like to say a little about what happened in Scotland. The levy gave very little support to the industry there, with the result that many courses, such as Lanark, remain closed to this day.

Alex Salmond: I am too young to have had the privilege of going to Lanark race course, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has been there many times. We regret the lack of investment, and the unnecessary shake-out of some courses in the 1950s and 1960s. I must say, to be fair to the levy board, that a number of the current Scottish courses have been strongly supported. Until recently our grade 1 track, Ayr—now thankfully under new management, and hoping for support in the future—was not in a position to seek assistance.
	I do not claim that the levy board is a perfect organisation. I am merely saying that this a difficult time at which to legislate. I know that the hon. Gentleman—whose interest in racing, particularly Scottish racing, is well known—appreciates that point.

Alan Meale: I raised the issue because of the suggestion that everyone was satisfied with the levy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Scottish racing has improved dramatically recently, but that has been largely due to good management. The improvement has happened not because of but despite the levy board, and the distribution that it should have had in the past.

Alex Salmond: Yes, although some investments have been supported substantially by the levy board. What is needed is innovative management at course level. There have been dramatic improvements on four Scottish courses so far, and we hope that that will apply to five courses now that Ayr is under new management. I do not want all that improvement, all that innovative management, to be jeopardised or sacrificed because of uncertainties in the marketplace.
	The Minister must reassure us that he will guide the industry through those uncertainties. He has given such reassurances in other contexts. He must solve the conundrum of why the OFT seems fundamentally to misunderstand the balance of forces in the marketplace, and tell us how he can make the tension in the relationship creative rather than destructive. However we view the issue, we should not favour a final decision at this stage. I do not see how we can legislate sensibly against a changing backcloth. Unless the Minister can give the information that I require, I shall continue to feel sympathetic towards the amendments.

Laurence Robertson: I want to make a brief contribution in support of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I first took an interest in horseracing in 1981, and at that time I thought that it was one sport governed by one body, and absolutely rolling in money. I had that impression for some years until I was elected to this House in 1997, since when I have had the honour of representing the Tewkesbury constituency, which contains Cheltenham race course. In January 1998, I applied for and obtained an Adjournment debate on national hunt racing. It is not an exaggeration to say that that debate changed my life, because when it was discovered that I had obtained it, I was approached by people from absolutely every corner of the sport. It was unbelievable that so many people should be phoning me, writing to me, coming to see me and, which was very pleasurable, inviting me to their race courses. The reason had nothing to do with me; those people were desperate for someone to champion their cause. I was aware that other hon. Members who had been here for some years had done that, but the fact that someone else who wanted to champion the cause of racing had come to the House was, to those people, to be hugely welcomed.
	I then began to look into the industry, and I discovered two things. First, it was very fragmented. Secondly, it was not rolling in money as I had thought. We hear about racing being the sport of kings, which indeed it is, but it is also the sport of many ordinary people, and long may it continue to be so. It is not rolling in money in the way in which some people not associated with the sport might imagine.
	The reason for my long preamble, which will probably be longer than the rest of my speech, is that I want to make the point that now is a very uncertain time in horseracing. We have heard about the potential collapse of the "Attheraces" deal, which has made for much uncertainty. The possible changes that the Office of Fair Trading is promoting are also very worrying. That was the subject of another Adjournment debate that I had the privilege of holding. Cheltenham, in my view, is the greatest race course in the world and very successful, but it is not the likes of Cheltenham that are likely to be much threatened by the OFT's proposals. I held that debate to demonstrate my concern for the smaller race courses, which depend for their income on newer or smaller trainers—people who are starting out in the industry. Without the Herefords and Ludlows of this world, there would not be a Cheltenham, so although it is my job to represent the Cheltenham race course in the House, I am also very concerned about the possible effect of the OFT's recommendations on smaller race courses.
	There is a problem with income and with potential income, and I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. Given the current huge uncertainty in racing, not only over who controls it—which is being questioned—but over the financial side, is this the time for the Minister to bind his hands by abolishing the levy without there being any obvious alternative income stream? I welcome the Bill, and the Minister has by and large done a very good job, but he seems prepared to have his hands bound over one or two aspects, yet not over others. Perhaps we can touch on the matter again on Third Reading, but I support my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to reconsider this aspect, given the tremendous uncertainty in horseracing at the moment.

David Rendel: I want to make a few short remarks in support of the amendments. They are very important, given the racing industry's serious concern over its future.
	My argument really stands on two legs. The first is that the racing industry in many ways moves and changes quite slowly, and is still very traditional. It still depends largely on many employees who work only part-time and for comparatively low wages. They perhaps attend, look after and organise the race course in their local area once a month, during the monthly race meeting, and they depend on racing for their very existence because their income otherwise is negligible, if it exists at all. That is a long-standing situation.
	The other leg of the argument is that the betting industry has been changing quickly in recent years, not least because of the advent of offshore betting through the internet and other new forms of betting, and the gambling legislation currently going through. That has led many of the people whom I mentioned, who have perhaps been in racing all their lives, to find their future open to question. Anything that we can do through the Bill to reassure such people that, whatever happens when the betting levy goes, there is a future for racing, there will still be money in it and there will not be a large number of redundancies, will be very welcome. Will the Minister seriously consider whether these amendments could be the ones to reassure those people? They badly need reassurance, and this is an opportunity for the Minister to give them that. I very much hope that he takes it.

David Heath: It is with pleasure that I follow my hon. Friends and other colleagues who have spoken, some of whom represent some of the larger race courses in the country, including Cheltenham and Newbury.
	I had anticipated that I would support the Bill throughout, including the changes to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, but the OFT report casts the whole Bill in a different light because of its effect on precisely the sort of race course that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) described. I represent one such race course, Wincanton. We had hoped to welcome the Minister there last week, and his comments over the phone to the school there were well received and much appreciated. I still hope that he will come to Wincanton to visit not only King Arthur's school but Wincanton race course. Wincanton is an extremely good race course—although I would say that, because I have lived in its shadow for most of my life. I have seen it grow and progress over the years from a situation, as described by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), where one stood under corrugated iron in the pouring rain, to one where one stands in grand grandstands. Wincanton has been built up and improved over the years, and represents an extremely good quality product for those who go there. I do not want to see any of that put under threat by what is now happening.
	The problem with the OFT report is threefold. First, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, it does not recognise the intricate balance of power in the industry. Secondly, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, the report seems to have a blind spot in that it recognises a monopoly of supply but not a monopoly of purchase. That seems extraordinary. Thirdly—a point that we occasionally miss when discussing such matters in the House—we are dealing with not only a major industry but a major sport. It is the sport aspects of racing that are in danger of attack if the OFT's proposals go through in their current form. I do not believe that Cheltenham and Newbury are at risk. I hope that Wincanton is not at risk, but I recognise that its turnover is just one tenth of Cheltenham's, which is worrying. Wincanton provides entertainment for many people who are very grateful for the chance to see quality racing on their doorstep.
	I recognise, however, that only about 37,000 people a year go to Wincanton race course. Inevitably, the financial position of courses such as Wincanton is more precarious than that of the big courses, but courses such as Wincanton provide the motor for the sport and industry of racing by providing opportunities not just for the lower-quality horses but for extremely good-quality horses. I remember seeing the legendary horse Desert Orchid many times around the Wincanton course, where he was a great favourite of the Wincanton race goers. As part of the structure of racing, the provision of races at different levels, at different stages in horses' development in training and at different standards provides the elite horses for the elite meetings in due course.
	My last point is that it is not just the race course that is affected. Apart from the number of people employed directly or indirectly when there is a meeting, which extends far beyond direct employees of the race course, I worry about the trainers who have made their homes in, and run their businesses from, Somerset. There are a great number of those, who are very successful, as well as stables, studs, foal-raising enterprises and vets, all of which are part of the bigger industry and the bigger sport that we call horse racing. To me, that is an important part of our rural way of life, certainly in my area and in many others around the country.
	If the OFT has its way, what I see developing is a concentration on bigger courses, a concentration on all-weather courses, which have their uses but do not necessarily represent all that is best in racing, a shrinking of the industry as a whole, fewer opportunities for new entrants to racing, and a loss of competitiveness—British racing already has a problem of competitiveness compared with overseas competitors. If we lose prize money, facilities and the structure of racing, all of those together will make a serious problem.
	I support the amendment. I hope that, at the very least, it will buy time to enable a sensible arrangement to be worked out. I know that the Minister is involved at least tangentially in this matter, and that progress is supposedly being made. I am concerned to ensure that we do not have a forced compromise that is not in the interests of racing, simply because of the time constraints and working against the legislative framework. I applaud what the Minister has done in relation to extending the levy for a year, but we must get this right. We must get the OFT to understand what it is doing in this area, as in so many others in which it intervenes and fails to see the wood for the trees. Most of all, we need to maintain a grass-roots industry. That may be an awful cliché to use in the context of racing, but we must make the industry and sport work from the bottom up, rather than having an elite structure that is to the detriment of racing as a whole.

Alan Meale: I see a lot of credit in both amendments tabled by the Opposition.
	The explanation given of Amendment No. 3 was that it is intended to ensure propriety and to ensure that the handover of assets and everything else connected to the levy board goes smoothly and honestly. I have seen instances of that not happening in the past when public assets have been transferred after a named date for transfer. The kind of propriety that we should lead people to expect, as their representatives, has not occurred. In relation to Teesside development corporation—to name one case—hundreds of millions of pounds seemed to go missing, with photocopying machines and the like turning up months and even years later without anybody being able to explain what had happened.
	What worried me in the explanation of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was whether the purpose of the amendment was to get round the Government's intention to hand back the role of the levy board to racing. He is a prominent supporter of racing in the House, and has been a leading member of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock. He is therefore acutely aware that the best report recently on racing, and on what needs to be done in relation to its management and structure, was the inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee, which examined not only horse racing but the question of the levy. Its conclusion was that there should be a single body for racing, and I am worried that amendment No. 3 might be used as an extension, whereby two, three or four bodies might remain.
	I commend amendment No. 4 because it rightly points out the damage being done by the OFT, and its mismanagement and mishandling of matters on behalf of the people who work in racing and depend on it for a living. As was mentioned, many people in the industry do not have a lot of money. There are 150,000 people in the industry who depend on it every day for their livelihood. They might work in betting shops or stables, and they certainly do not make money out of gambling. They are not wealthy people, and they depend on us to pass legislation to safeguard their futures.
	I therefore commend amendment No. 4, but I am worried about the implementation and purpose of amendment No. 3.

Richard Caborn: I resist amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and I want to give the reasons why.
	I preface my remarks by saying that racing is a growing industry. Several figures have been quoted on Report and in Committee: the number of supporters of racing has grown from 5 million to 6 million people, and the profitability of the industry is growing. In addition, there is now a recognition of the need to try to bring order to the governing bodies of the sport. I am pleased about the discussions with the British Horseracing Board and its constituent members to try to make sure that we remove from the sport and the industry some of the disarray and unfortunate infighting that has existed. I remind the House that it was the BHB that requested that the levy be removed, and that it believes that it can do a proper commercial deal within the industry. There is no argument about that, and as far as the industry is concerned, it was one of the founding objectives of the BHB. We are therefore talking about an industry that is growing and that still has tremendous potential, and I hope that the decisions on the Tote will make sure that that element of the industry flourishes, too.
	On amendment No. 3, which seeks to ensure that the levy board cannot be closed down until provision is made for a transfer scheme to provide for the transfer of the levy board's assets to the new owners, it is unclear why hon. Members feel that the amendment is necessary. For real, practical reasons, we cannot envisage a scenario in which the levy board would close down, or be close to closing down, if we had not already found a home for its assets. That would be ludicrous, and we cannot find any reasons for doing it.
	On the more substantive amendment No. 4, on which most of the debate has centred, as I explained in Committee and again this evening, the levy board should be closed and its assets transferred when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the time is right. As many Members on both sides of the House have said, this is enabling legislation.
	Again, Members have referred to their concerns about the OFT, and I have made clear my concerns in public statements. I have indicated to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the OFT, and there has been an exchange of correspondence, which, unfortunately, cannot be put into the public domain. Nevertheless, we can reassure hon. Members that we have responded to the concerns of the House by saying that any settlement should be for the betterment of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke about how many people are employed in the industry, and we certainly need to factor that in.
	I had a meeting with the industry a few weeks ago. I am optimistic that we are moving towards an acceptable compromise. To try to give the industry some stability, I have already announced an extension of the levy to 2006. However, I cannot accept that there is any benefit in the Secretary of State being required to publish a report on the OFT's inquiry before the levy scheme ends.
	The specific point raised by the amendment relates not to the inquiry as a whole but to that part concerning the sale of the BHB's data and media rights. My understanding is that the media rights belong predominantly to the race courses and are not part of the inquiry. The OFT's final ruling will clearly not be the responsibility of the Secretary of State or the Government. It will be a matter for the OFT and the BHB. The Secretary of State will probably not even be party to the information, and it is doubtful that we would have access to enough information to produce a meaningful report, even if we wanted to.
	It is safe to assume, I believe, that the ruling is of such importance to the racing industry that there will be no shortage of debate when it comes out. We will take into account all relevant circumstances before the Secretary of State exercises her powers in clauses 15 and 16. Our position is known to the OFT and to the industry. We believe that there is now enough common ground to find a solution to the problem. I say that very genuinely. I can give a reassurance that, although clauses 15 and 16 give powers to the Secretary of State, she has no need to exercise them until she is satisfied that it will be for the betterment of the industry and the sport.

Alex Salmond: I welcome what the Minister just said. As he knows, the sale of media rights will be closely related to arrangements for the sale of data. A cross-party group, the friends of Scottish racing, has been formed to examine these questions specifically in relation to Scotland. Will he undertake to meet us, so that we can express specifically Scottish concerns about the new framework?

Richard Caborn: My door is nearly always open for most people to come and make representations. That is what Ministers are there to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise that matter with my office, we will meet.
	I have a lot of sympathy with hon. Members who have the interests of the sport at heart, but they should realise that no responsible Government would pursue early abolition of the levy board if there was any question of there being no adequate funding stream to replace it. I hope that that gives sufficient reassurance to allow the amendment to be withdrawn.

James Paice: I thank all who have contributed to the debate, many of whom have made their maiden contribution to proceedings on the Bill on this issue. I am appreciative of the support that has come from all quarters other than the Government Front Bench. I cannot but point out a contradiction in the Minister's position. He has sought, most vigorously, to assure us that all the Bill does is give the Secretary of State powers that she does not have to use unless she is absolutely happy that everything will be fine afterwards, but when we discussed part 1, on the Tote, he referred to the House instructing him to sell it. He cannot have it both ways. There is no difference between parts 1 and 2 in that respect: they are both pieces of enabling legislation.

Richard Caborn: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not followed the debate. There is that which is within our control, and that which is outside it. What is in the Government's control is to be able to sell the Tote, and the price and conditions that go with that. The one thing that we are not in control of—rightly—is the OFT. That is what has created the uncertainty in the provisions for abolishing the levy. I have reassured the House, and it can be seen in our correspondence with the OFT. That is the essential difference.

James Paice: I am afraid that that has no relevance whatever to the point that I was making.

Richard Caborn: I will read Hansard tomorrow.

James Paice: I suggest that the Minister reads his own comments. He specifically said—it will be in Hansard—that the House is instructing the Government to sell the Tote, yet now he says that the Bill does not instruct the Government to abolish the levy but merely enables the Secretary of State to do so. The OFT investigation is not relevant in that context.
	To reply to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Healel) on amendment No. 3, I certainly do not want more proliferation of organisations. We are at one on that, and that is not the intention behind the amendment. The intention—I find it difficult to see why the Minister cannot bring himself to accept this—is simply that the transfer scheme should be part of the order abolishing the levy board. It is a tiny issue, and for him to resist it seems to me to be obstinacy ruling reason.
	Several hon. Members have talked about the value of small courses. I represent a large course, one of the two at Newmarket, and I clearly do not envisage that Newmarket is under threat from whatever the OFT may decide, but we must consider the small courses. We are not talking about the closure of one or two courses—nobody could reasonably argue that that would have a devastating effect on the industry as a whole, although it would on the locality—because all the commentators believe that if the rule 14 order stands, it could lead to the closure of tens of courses, if not more, and that would certainly have a catastrophic impact, not least because, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, there is a structure of courses. He referred to Desert Orchid, but many horses never make it to the very famous courses but spend all their lives racing on smaller courses. Others start on the smaller courses and progress to the household names. All courses are important in the interdependent structure of racing, and many hon. Members have pointed out that the OFT seems completely to have failed to understand that.
	The commercial approach to producing an income stream for racing, through the sale of data and media rights, must be the right one, and there is nothing between the Government and us in that objective, but it is unrealistic for the BHB, the race courses or any other grouping to start commercial negotiations to generate income to replace the levy until they know what the commercial legislative parameters of those negotiations are to be, as laid down by the OFT.
	I welcome the Minister's fond beliefs that the negotiations with the OFT and the industry are going well and that a solution will be found. I very much hope that he is right. All I am suggesting through the amendments is that, in the absence of any conclusion to those negotiations, it would be premature to give the Government carte blanche to abolish the levy board. Amendment No. 3 is the barest minimum step away from that, and amendment No. 4 goes a little further in requiring a report from the Secretary of State. I was surprised when the Minister suggested that the outcome of those negotiations would be confidential. I cannot see how they can be confidential if they are to meet the requirement that everybody understands the marketing structure that could be adopted for the sale of data and media rights. Amendment No. 4 would require that a report be made, and that the House consider it and take a final decision.
	It is clear that the Minister is determined to press on and to resist what are minor and reasonable amendments. In the light of his resistance, I shall press them to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware of the widespread speculation that a statement may be made by the Prime Minister on establishing an inquiry into weapons of mass destruction. Have you, Sir, heard any news in that respect, and would it be possible to ask for at least 45 minutes notice of the deployment of such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that—[Interruption.] Order. I am aware of the speculation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, as far as a statement is concerned, I have heard nothing at the moment. Perhaps I could add, in a more jocular vein, that the Chair would sometimes appreciate 45 minutes notice of points of order.

Clause 31
	 — 
	Distributions policy

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 17, line 6, , at end insert—
	'(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(ii) the Mayor of London must have regard to the equal importance of the Olympic Bid 2012 and the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley area'.
	We now turn to the Bill's provisions on the Olympics and the new Olympic lottery. It is appropriate, as we turn to the sporting elements of the Bill, to have a sports fan such as yourself in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should also say, as a great racing fan, that I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said about the racing aspects. We have worked together as a team and I am pleased to have seen such strong support for our views on both sides of the House—including, most recently, in the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).
	Conservative Members completely support the Olympic bid for London 2012. The Minister and I—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—are wearing our London 2012 Olympic bid badges. We hope that, on the day after London has won the Olympic bid in 2005, all Members and people throughout the country will want to wear those badges to demonstrate the whole country's support for the Olympic bid and for staging the Olympics in London in 2012.
	We sought to improve this part of the Bill in Committee. There were three big issues for Conservative Members, two of which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will return to on Third Reading and my noble Friends, led by Lord Moynihan, will pursue in another place. We believe that, in order to bring in the maximum amount for sport in general and the Olympics in particular, the Olympic lottery game should start at a time when interest in the Olympics will be at its height. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon at Culture, Media and Sport questions.
	Secondly, we believe that the Government should show their commitment to sport—it is what I call the acid test—by agreeing to forgo what would otherwise be the tax take from the new Olympic lottery game and instead giving those moneys to sport.
	The third big issue is dealt with by amendment No. 9. We want to avoid any Olympic bid being in some way hijacked by the present Mayor of London. In Committee, we recognised that the regeneration of the lower Lea valley area in east London would be an important side effect of a—hopefully successful—Olympic bid. However, we have been concerned that in many of his public statements, the Mayor has afforded regeneration greater importance than the Olympics. In Committee we sought to deal with the problem in a slightly different way from the present amendment No. 9, but I am indebted—as are we all in the House—to the Clerks for their advice on finding an acceptable alternative way of presenting the issue to the House this evening.
	As the whole country will remember, the Prime Minister bitterly criticised the present Mayor when he first stood as a mayoral candidate.
	The Prime Minister predicted that the Mayor would be "a disaster for London", but because it has become clear in the past few months that there is absolutely no chance of a victory for another Labour candidate, the current Mayor of London has suddenly become the Prime Minister's new best friend.
	We hope that there will soon be a new Mayor of London—a Conservative Mayor. When the Mayor is consulted on future decisions about the Olympic bid, it would be helpful if the Bill stated that in responding to the consultation the Mayor must take fully into account the interests of both the regeneration of the lower Lea valley and the London 2012 bid. The amendment is a straightforward attempt to improve the Bill, which we sought to do with all our amendments in Committee, for the sake of both sport and the Olympic bid. We hope that the Government will accept it, if not today then in another place.

Doug Henderson: I do not want to detain the House, but the amendment is frivolous. There is no conflict between the London Olympic bid and the need to regenerate the area where the games will primarily be based.
	If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) thinks that there is a conflict, he has not examined the proposals from other cities. To allow the necessary space not only for new stadiums but for all the ancillary facilities such as parking, new public transport infrastructure and especially houses for athletes, the Olympic village cannot be located in an area such as Hyde park or the Bois de Boulogne. If a major city is selected—we recognise that the International Olympic Committee will go for a major city—the Olympic village must be located in an area that is currently not used for very much. It therefore makes sense to look for a regeneration project as part of the Olympic bid, so I cannot see the conflict.

Nick Hawkins: Like me, the hon. Gentleman visited the potential sites with the all-party Olympics group. I agree with him that there should not be a conflict, but concern has been expressed that the current Mayor of London has talked almost solely about regeneration. We want to see both the necessary regeneration and a concentration on the bid in any work done by the Mayor of London—whoever that may be. Our amendment seeks to ensure that the Mayor will consider both matters in any consultation.

Doug Henderson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I learned a lot on the visit to the Lea valley and saw exactly what is proposed. I cannot see how there is a conflict. The Mayor of London is responsible for promoting the redevelopment of the Lea valley, as he is responsible for promoting the redevelopment of other areas. The best way—perhaps the only way—currently to redevelop that area is to do so on the back of the Olympic bid.
	The Mayor of London knows how crucial the Olympic bid is for London, and I say that as a Member of Parliament from Newcastle. I support the London Olympic bid because I know that Britain will not get the Olympics unless they go to London. It is hugely important, particularly for young people throughout the country, that we take our best shot at obtaining the Olympics. The Olympic village must therefore be located in a redevelopment area. I cannot see a conflict and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not sure that an amendment is necessary to make the point.

Don Foster: On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say a little more about our support for the Olympic and Paralympic bid. Liberal Democrat Members fully support the bid and would not want to take any action that might reduce the chance of success. Anything that drives a wedge between any of the component parts of the bidding process will clearly not be helpful.
	Sadly, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) attempted to suggest in Committee that the Mayor of London, whoever he or she might be, should not even be consulted on how lottery funds raised through the new Olympic lottery game should be spent, which was clearly a bad mistake on his part. Equally, it is a bad mistake to suggest that the Mayor of London, or anyone else involved in the bidding process or the arrangements to distribute lottery funds, would not take into account the wide range of important interests.
	All hon. Members want to see a successful Olympic bid and want to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit from a successful Olympic games. If people did not take that view, it would be pointless to suggest an Olympic lottery game. People from across the country are hardly likely to play that game if they do not see that, as well as the chance of winning some money, it will benefit their part of the country, whether it be Bath, Bangor, Belfast or even Banff.
	All parts of the country should benefit, but it is clear that London will undoubtedly benefit, not least through the regeneration of the lower Lea valley, which is vital. Hon. Members surely know that London has the highest unemployment of all regions in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who apologises for not being here, pointed out earlier that 13 of the top 20 constituencies in the unemployment list are London constituencies. Vital regeneration, huge support for sport in this country and other benefits will flow from a successful Olympic bid.
	I am sure that the Mayor of London wants to be involved in the deliberations, not least because he, on behalf of the people of London, is making a significant contribution—not only a contribution to funding the cost of the bid, 50 per cent. of which will come from London, but a contribution of £500 million towards the cost of staging the Olympics if the bid is successful. Londoners will contribute an average council tax increase of some £20, and will rightly expect to benefit, not least from the regeneration.
	I say to the Minister in passing that during regeneration account should be taken of the needs of businesses currently located in the lower Lea valley that may need to move to other locations. I hope that every effort will be made to ensure that new premises can be found for them within the locality, so that they, too, can benefit from the Olympic bid.
	I find it strange that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who moved the amendment, wants to ensure that only one of those who will be consulted must take a balanced approach to regeneration and the other benefits of the Olympics. Why should not the National Lottery Commission or the National Olympic Committee equally be expected to consider both factors?
	The amendment is clearly a pop at the current Mayor of London. It shows that the Conservative party has very little faith in its candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steve Norris, which is understandable since my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will occupy that position in the near future.

John Gummer: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests, because I have given a certain amount of environmental advice in relation to previous Olympic games, and to those who sponsor them.
	I remind the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) of the election addresses of both the Labour party and the Liberal party, and the criticisms that they made of the current Mayor of London. Both his assertions about who the next Mayor will be were wrong; he is wrong to say that we are anything other than wholly convinced that Mr. Norris will be elected and his prognostication of the likelihood of his candidate winning is about three, if not four, places out.
	I think that he is also wrong because he does not understand the seriousness of the issue.
	I realise that it would be embarrassing for the Minister, but if I were to quote—although I shall not—the comments that have been made by Labour party members about the trustworthiness of the present Mayor of London, he would understand why it is so difficult for him to defend that Mayor. I am not too worried, as by the time the provisions have a real effect the present Mayor will no longer be Mayor, so we shall not be inconvenienced. As I represent a constituency outside London, and as I was the Minister responsible for negotiating and trying to win the bid for the Manchester Olympics, I want to underline the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson): if we are to have the Olympics at all, we need to have them in London. London deserves the Olympics and I am wholly in favour of them coming to the capital.
	The Olympics are a potent means of regeneration—without it we would have no possibility of achieving the needs and demands of the International Olympic Committee. The committee demands that the Olympics should have a regeneration effect, especially in an area such as the Lea valley, which has been bypassed by time but where there is still the residuum of past glories. The bid offers an important opportunity to do something about the Lea valley. I speak as a former Secretary of State who, to some extent, started the Lea valley improvements, so I am pleased that the area has been chosen.
	It is important to keep things in parallel. The amendment is useful, although I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not press it to a Division. It merely puts down a marker, but I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. It is saying that the Olympic organisation demands that we keep together a series of things. Of course, the crucial thing is that we get the actual Olympic games right as a great athletic enterprise, but regeneration is a part of that. Helping the nation to rediscover its enthusiasm for sport, throughout the nation, is another aspect. Ensuring that the whole nation not only backs the bid and fights for us to get the games but also that we make them best that we can achieve is a further part of the process. In addition, the games should be a focus for environmental improvement and sustainability. Thank goodness, that is also part of what the Olympic movement now demands, but it is sometimes forgotten.
	It is timely, therefore, to remind those who are making the decisions of the range of things they need to hold together. My sadness is that there is already a tendency for all sorts of people to try to claim bits of the Olympics for themselves. Perhaps, we should see the amendment as a means to remind everybody that if the Olympics are to be a success they must be seen as an expression of the national will to do better than anyone else, not just in running, jumping, swimming and all the other sports, but in the actual staging of the games. We should show that they are a means of regeneration, an example of sustainability and environmental concern, a challenge to a nation to rediscover its sporting prowess and a remarkable exposition of the abilities of those who are disabled.
	The games offer a remarkable opportunity and I hope that we shall not allow the predisposition of the present Mayor for self-publicity to get in the way.

Richard Caborn: Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, it was obvious that he had not actually read the Bill carefully, because we have already taken on board the sentiments that he expressed. For example, clause 31 deals with distribution policy; there is a requirement for a distribution strategy, which can be reviewed. Clause 30 sets out the conditions for the distribution of the money and subsection (1)(b) of clause 31 is a requirement to
	"review and revise the policy".
	Thus all the safeguards for which the amendment asks are already in the Bill.
	In response to points made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), we take the responsibilities of the distributor of lottery money very seriously indeed and clauses 30 and 31 give all the reassurances that are needed.
	We can knock about the party political stuff in the Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere, but as we move towards July 2005 we must be careful. We must be clear that one of the things that has really impressed the International Olympic Committee to date is the unity of purpose that we have demonstrated. Across parties and across the nation, we have shown that we are very serious indeed about winning the bid in 2005. I gave the Standing Committee an example of the extent of that unity of purpose when I described my visit to Greenwich just before Christmas. I was talking about tourism and, obviously, the Olympic bid formed part of that discussion. The London boroughs have come together, especially on planning issues—probably nothing but the Olympics could have brought them together in that way—and I was told, "If Barbara Cassani wants planning permission on Christmas day, she only has to call and we'll make sure she gets it". That is symbolic of people's real desire to come together, across party, across borough and across nation. The devolved Administrations, too, have given their full support.
	We should take lessons from that and not allow a situation in which the press will be writing about splits over Ken Livingstone. Indeed, on this particular issue, we could not have received more support from the present incumbent of the Mayor's office. The Government have worked closely with the British Olympic Association and the Mayor's office to ensure that we have a robust funding package. Indeed, the IOC remarked on that fact; it said that our approach had been properly managed and that we had come to sound and well-informed decisions in terms both of logistics and of the robust financial package that we put forward.
	I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not press the amendment to a Vote and that we all heed the lesson about unity of purpose. If we do, both 2005 and the games in 2012 are well within our grasp.

Nick Hawkins: The debate has been short but useful.
	I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). When he responded to my intervention, he referred to the visit that we had made to the lower Lea valley. He is right about the need not to set up conflict, and our amendment would not do that, as I made clear to him. We want the Bill to include recognition that the regeneration programme and the Olympic bid should be equally scrutinised and supported.
	I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Speaking from his great experience both of helping to start the work in the Lea valley and of his work on the Manchester Olympics, he is right to say that regeneration plays a crucial part when the IOC considers bids. He is also right to say that the amendment was designed to put down a marker.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that we need to take into account the businesses that need to relocate. He may be interested to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and I raised that matter with the London Development Agency during the visit of the all-party Olympics group—in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North also took part. Although of course one wants to support the Olympic bid, one must not ignore the interests of local businesses that may need to be relocated, of which there are many, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal knows.
	I am grateful for what the Minister said about the IOC's welcome for the all-party support for the Olympic bid. However, he will recognise that as Bills such as this go through Parliament it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and other parties to do a genuine job of scrutiny. I know that he would not decry the importance of parliamentary scrutiny.
	Although, of course, we totally support what Barbara Cassani and her team are doing with the Olympic bid, we must be constructive in our scrutiny. My noble Friend Lord Moynihan and others in another place will continue the Bill's scrutiny and will raise matters that deserve debate as its passage continues.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I made it clear, the Bill is not hugely partisan. We have raised the points that we wished to put on record. We were slightly worried that an individual could try to hijack this specific part of the bid process, but we have debated that. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	New Schedule 1A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 26, line 2, leave out 'seven' and insert '28'.
	No. 15, in page 26, line 15, leave out 'seven' and insert '28'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Sale of the Tote: Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 28, line 27, at end insert—
	'11A(1) Section 24 (Horserace Betting Levy Board) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "the Totalisator Board" substitute ", while the exclusive licence under section 8 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 (sale of the Tote) has effect, the successor company nominated for the purposes of section 2 of that Act".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "seven other members" substitute "six other members", and
	(b) omit subsection (2)(e).
	(4) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for ", the Bookmakers' Committee and the Totalisator Board respectively" substitute "or the Bookmakers' Committee", and
	(b) for "subsection (2)(b), (d) or (e)" substitute "subsection (2)(b) or (d)".
	11B In section 30 (contributions by Totalisator Board)—
	(a) in each place (including in the heading) before "Totalisator Board" insert "successor company to the", and
	(b) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any contribution which the successor company to the Totalisator Board is liable to make—
	(a) in respect of a time when the exclusive licence does not have effect, and
	(b) as a bookmaker.".'.
	No. 17, in page 29, line 25, at end insert—
	'Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 (c. 14)
	16A In section 5 of the Horserace Betting Levy Act 1969 (annual contribution by Totalisator Board)—
	(a) in each place in subsection (1) (and the heading) before "Totalisator Board" insert "successor company to the",
	(b) in subsection (1) for "object" substitute "objects", and
	(c) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any contribution which the successor company to the Totalisator Board is liable to make—
	(a) in respect of a time when the exclusive licence does not have effect, and
	(b) as a bookmaker.".'.—[Mr. Caborn.]

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 41, line 20, at end insert "Section 24(2)(e)."—[Mr. Caborn.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have had wide-ranging and interesting debates on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Opposition parties for participating in such a constructive process. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Opposition's approach was probing, but we have conducted our proceedings to take the interests of racing and the Olympic bid forward effectively. The Bill is in good shape, so it is right that we now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair hearing from all sides.
	The Bill enables the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to sell the Tote in a way that is fair both to racing and the taxpayer. Today, the Government have taken the opportunity to give the racing industry, the Tote itself, and hon. Members, the certainty that they wanted about key aspects of the Bill. We genuinely listened to their concerns and I hope that we responded positively, when possible. If our plans to sell the Tote to a racing consortium proceed, the Government will issue the successor company with an exclusive seven-year licence to provide pool betting on British horse racing. The seven-year period has been included in the Bill, so I hope that interested parties are now sufficiently comfortable about our intentions.
	The Bill will also help to end the Government's outdated involvement in the funding and administration of horse racing, while safeguarding the important work of the levy board in supporting veterinary research and the improvement of breeds of horse. We want to ensure that those will be maintained at their current levels, at least, after the abolition of the board.
	Should we win the right to host the Olympics, the Bill will give us the opportunity to introduce the Olympic lottery straight away. Let us throw our minds forward to July 2005, as we build up to presenting the British bid in Singapore. As I said in Committee, if we are fortunate enough to win, the response to the launch of the Olympic lottery will probably go beyond many hon. Members' expectations. Now that the provisions are in place, the International Olympic Committee will be further reassured that our bid for the 2012 Olympics is serious.
	A dedicated Olympic lottery is expected to raise £750 million to help to fund the 2012 games. As was indicated during our short debate on the Olympics, the money would bring benefits throughout the whole of the UK. There would be regeneration not only in the Lea valley—although that is important—and in the east end of London and the Thames gateway, but throughout other parts of the United Kingdom in which holding camps would be established. The Bill is important for all those reasons, and I commend it to the House.

James Paice: As the Minister said, the Bill is important for horse racing especially, and as part of our planning for the lottery. As the House is fully aware, parts 1 and 2 relate to the Tote and the levy board. Racing is a huge industry with 100,000-odd jobs and 59 courses. In the past few years there has been record growth in the number of people attending racing, in betting turnover and in the number of horses in racing, so the industry is enjoying great success at present.
	The Government's objectives in the Bill—the transfer of the Tote to racing, and the end of the Horserace Betting Levy Board with the transfer of its property to the British Horseracing Board—are entirely shared by Conservative Members. However, there are several details about which we are not happy and to which we shall want to return in another place: the mechanism and ownership of the Tote; the non-renewable nature of the exclusive licence; and the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading investigations and the uncertainty surrounding racing as a result of those deliberations. Of course we welcome the two concessions that the Government made on Report, which are the inclusion of provisions on the seven-year exclusive licence, and the increase of the period for the submission of accounts from seven to 28 days for possessors of the licence.
	In some ways, I am sorry that the Minister was so robust—I used the word "obstinate" earlier—in resisting amendments that would simply have included in the Bill several undertakings that he gave, although I assure him that that in no way reflects any doubt about his personal sincerity. However, if the Government are determined to deliver the transfer of the Tote and the dealings with the levy in the way that he described, which has the support of the whole House, I do not understand why measures to provide for that should not be included in the Bill. The desire to leave such provisions out is bound to engender some suspicion of alternative motives in some sectors of the Government—although I do not attribute those to the Minister.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said earlier, the Bill is largely not partisan—and we have tried not to make our consideration partisan. All hon. Members have addressed the aspects of the Bill involving the racing sector with genuine concern for a vital part of our leisure industry, which is also a huge employer that is important for many parts of the country, including mine. The Minister referred to the work of the levy board, and perhaps no constituency benefits from that more than mine. The horse racing forensic laboratory, the National Stud and the equine fertility unit are all in my constituency, so I have seen for myself the work and the benefits of the levy during my frequent visits to those places. I want that income flow to continue, albeit from commercial sources, after the abolition of the levy. I remain concerned about the uncertainty that surrounds the industry and the commercial framework in which negotiations on the sale of data and media rights will be undertaken.
	The Olympic lottery aspect of the Bill has widespread support throughout the House. I am somewhat relieved that Scottish National party Members, who voted against Second Reading for some obscure reason, are not in the Chamber tonight—I hope that I am not tempting fate and that they will not descend en masse in a moment. Hon. Members, and people throughout the country, genuinely wish the Olympic bid well. As many Members have said, winning the Olympic bid for London will benefit the whole country, and equally, only London can win it. Our desire to achieve that is as strong as that of the Government and everybody else, so I repeat the support that has been expressed for the bid. Again, however, there are one or two issues to which we shall return in another place. We are not entirely convinced that the Government have examined all the ways in which the start date of the lottery could be brought forward, and I know that my noble Friends will wish to pursue that matter.
	I, too, add my thanks to hon. Members who participated in proceedings on the Bill. There was little Government Back-Bench action in Committee other than on the all-important issue of the welfare of racehorses. Those of us who have been Government Back Benchers on Committees know full well why that is. The Minister only let rip once in Committee and went off message—off text—when he inappropriately accused the hon. Member for Bath and me of being in an unholy alliance against market forces. That was so off beam in terms of the logic of our case that it deserves a mention. We wanted to enhance the working of the overall betting market rather than take the protectionist approach suggested by the Minister.
	I also thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Bath for their contributions. I did not know of the interest of the hon. Member for Bath in horse racing, but it came through loud and clear. He did his homework, and I thank him for his support on some of our amendments.
	The Opposition wish the Bill well. We want the Tote transferred into the hands of a racing trust as soon as possible. We will do all we can to expedite that. We take at face value the Government's many assurances about their intentions regarding the Tote and the levy, despite the Minister's refusal to include them in the Bill. We will address those issues in another place. In the meantime, I wish the Bill well in its subsequent proceedings and look forward to the implementation of all three parts of it.

Dennis Turner: I will address my brief comments to the betting aspects of the Bill. As we heard, there are 5 million to 6 million supporters of racing in this country. I want to place on the record their thanks to our Minister for Sport for introducing the Bill in the interests of everyone involved in racing.
	As a member of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock, I vividly recall the passionate debate on the Tote and its future in the years following 1987. The issue of the betting levy led to major clashes with the bookies and the Jockey Club. A Conservative Government were in power throughout those years, and they tried to do the impossible and square the circle. All those issues—crucial for racing—are addressed in the Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister restate that he and the Government were optimistic that the OFT and the racing industry, through the BHB, would resolve funding issues after the levy board disappears in 2006.
	I congratulate our Government. We are fulfilling an election commitment, and the Bill shows that they are giving their long-term support to racing. I commend them on that, and I also commend our excellent Minister for Sport, who has given many hours to ensuring that he gets the Bill right. I thank him for it.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). I shall not give the same paeans of praise to the Minister, but I agree that he has the best interests not only of horse racing but of sport in general at heart. We have all been impressed with his knowledge of the horse-racing industry. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) suggested that I had had to do my homework before I served on the Committee. He was right, although I had some experience of the wonderful race course at Bath. I note how many different race courses hon. Members brought into their deliberations.
	The real credit for boning up must go to the Minister. I note with great interest that back in June 2001 he was—unfairly, in my view—caught out by Clare Balding on Radio Five Live, when he was asked a series of questions about his knowledge of sport. One question was:
	"Can you name three jockeys who will be riding at Royal Ascot this week?"
	to which he honestly and gamely replied:
	"No. I know nothing about horse racing at all."
	Since then he has done a lot of learning, no doubt with the help of his officials, to whom he must be grateful.
	Much has happened in the short time for which we have discussed the Bill. Many of us indicated broad support for it on Second Reading. We commented on the fact that it was an enabling measure and explained that it had some holes. We tried to plug some of the gaps and fill those holes in Committee. I am grateful that the Minister listened to some of the arguments. As a result of our deliberations, a number of the holes have been filled by amendments. When he was not prepared to alter the Bill, he gave clear assurances on issues of concern, which will stand us in good stead at later stages and when his various plans come to fruition.
	On the Tote, there remains concern about what will happen after the seven-year exclusive licence ends and whether, in the different competitive market that will exist then, the Tote, whatever guise it is in, will continue to give at least the same sums to racing. There is uncertainty. No doubt that can be explored in more detail in another place.
	There is also uncertainty about the ending of the horserace betting levy and the board that administers it. The Minister has been open, acknowledging that there are difficulties with the alternative. I pay tribute to him for his work behind the scenes with the BHB and many others to find a solution to the problems caused by Office of Fair Trading rule 14. None of that alters the fact that we still have a great deal of uncertainty and continue to think that it would be wrong to abandon the levy before an alternative that is accepted throughout the racing industry is in place.
	On the final part of the Bill, concerning the Olympic bid and the Olympic lottery game, I reiterate my party's clear support for the bid for the Olympic and Paralympic games. We have made a good start on that and congratulate all those involved in putting the bid together. We all accept that we will be successful only if we can demonstrate that we have clear financial underpinning for the bid. We have to impress the International Olympic Committee that we have clear funding streams to ensure that we will stage the best ever Olympics, and provide the regeneration that can come from that. Part of doing that is to have a successful Olympic lottery game.
	I have explained that we have some general concerns that an additional game will have a detrimental effect on other good causes. We worry about further Government interference in dictating how lottery money should be used. As always, some cases justify an exception to the rule. Winning that Olympic bid is vital. It will bring benefits to all parts of the country, raise our sporting aspirations and regenerate not only the lower Lea valley, but many other parts of the country as well. On this occasion, therefore, it is worth making that exception and supporting the concept of an Olympic lottery game as a component of the funding of what we hope will be a successful bid, and then a successful Olympic games.
	Over the past 12 years I have been fortunate enough to serve in Committee on many Bills. On some occasions, Ministers in charge of the Bills have been kind enough to invite all those who have served in Committee to have drinks with them to celebrate the end of consideration in Committee. Sometimes, because of the fraught nature of our discussions and deliberations in Committee, those drinks sessions have been rather tense affairs. In this instance, I hope that our discussions have been successful and that we have made some significant and valuable improvements to the Bill—so I hope that we shall be able to enjoy a pleasant session with the Minister at the drinks do that I am sure he will arrange. With that, we wish the Bill speedy passage in another place.

Derek Wyatt: In Barbara Cassani and Keith Mills we have two exceptional people. When we look back at things that did not work, such as Picketts Lock and certain aspects of the dome, although the dome was built on time and the Jubilee line was open on time—perhaps it was the contents of the dome that upset some of us—we see that there was an issue of ownership. There was no ownership of those two projects—not at the level of Government, local chief executive, Mayor or managing director. In Manchester—this is what made things work—we had a chairman, a chief executive and a managing director. It took some time to get things to work in Manchester, but we were successful. A few shins were kicked, and deservedly so. That has already been done, and it has been forgiven. That is why the local boroughs have been so good. They recognise that the model to follow is Manchester.
	I am interested in the Olympics because I am interested in my local patch. We are not so far away, and we think we have the best wind-surfing facility in Europe. I said to Keith Mills a couple of weeks ago, "Most Members want to understand how they can get into this. They want to see whether they can host Australia, France or Germany, or parts of the teams that come over, if we win the games. What about a one-day conference so that local sports clubs, local district councils and county councils might come together to understand how we won and how we got the games?" He said, "That's a very good idea—I'll put it to Barbara."
	I have not found that approach before, and that is the good thing about the forthcoming Olympics. On the other hand, if someone was a member of the International Olympic Committee in 1990, he would have said, "Athens will win", but in 1996 it was Atlanta. In 1996 it was said that it would be Beijing, but it was Sydney for 2000. If people are saying now that it will be Paris, that is good, because favourites do not win. It is countries that come from underneath that win. I support Third Reading, I support the London bid and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY)

Ordered,
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 12th February, do adjourn till Monday 23rd February 2004.—[Mr. Heppell.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.

National Election Expenditure

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Combined Region and Campaign Expenditure) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

Energy

Ordered,
	That the Sustainable Energy (CHP Provisions) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2987) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to the Police Grant Report not later than two hours after their commencement, and put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance not later than Six o'clock or four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to the Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Patrick McLoughlin: I shall make one quick point on this subject. I regret that the motion will give us but four hours to discuss those two matters. In the past, such motions have been given far longer debates on the Floor of the House. They are worthy of greater and longer debate. They cover a huge range of local services that are delivered to our constituents. Indeed, they cover about 40 per cent. of the public expenditure delegated to local authorities. In the past we have always had more time to discuss such motions.
	Under the timetable motion, we might have no more than two hours to discuss the local government settlement. There will be an hour when a statement is made, and two hours will allow little time for Back-Bench Members to participate in the debate. This is a bad move, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the issue in future. I shall not oppose the motion, but we all know that council tax is one of the issues that is at the forefront of many of our constituents' minds. To provide only two hours for the police grant and the local government grant is a retrograde step, and I hope that more time will be provided in future.

Phil Woolas: I shall explain the background to the motion and try to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Perhaps I can reassure him about our intention, if not about the outcome.
	This is a Business of the House motion of the normal sort. It relates to the business for this Thursday, when we are to debate the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2004–05 and then the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2004–05. The motion provides for the debate on the first report to end not later than two hours after it begins, and for the second debate to end not later than 6 pm, or four hours after the first debate began, whichever is the later. In other words, the motion makes more generous provision than would otherwise be provided for under Standing Order No. 16, which limits debates on proceedings under an Act to one and a half hours. Our intention is to ensure that the House has more time than it would otherwise have had. It also provides that the Sessional Orders on deferred Divisions should not apply; in other words, any Divisions would not be deferred.
	I think that the House will take the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. All Members in England and Wales—and, I would argue, in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well—have an interest in those matters. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard the comments that have been made, and I urge the House to support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 11th February, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Michael Howard may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.
	Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 12th February, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than three hours after their commencement; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Heppell.]

FINANCE AND SERVICES

Ordered,
	That Michael Fabricant be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Robert Key be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]

CONCRETE-CRUSHING PLANT (UPCHURCH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Derek Wyatt: During January, I was knocking on doors on the Isle of Sheppey. I have been involved in 500 interviews. The two matters that are at the forefront when I talk to people about their problems are council tax and planning. It is with some nervousness and apprehension that I raise a planning issue, because a Member entering into a planning issue knows that he is walking on glass. He knows that, generally, there are two sides to the matter.
	In this instance, I am responding to the concerns of my constituents who live opposite Four Gun field, some of whom belong to the Four Gun field action group. I do so because they are constituents and because they feel frustrated. In a way, they feel unloved and uncared for. As their Member of Parliament, I am in some ways struggling to know how best to help and advise them.
	I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Minister is also in a difficult position, and I do not expect her to be able to respond in massive detail. Indeed, this may be one of our shortest Adjournment debates.
	In trying to find a resolution to the problem at the Four Gun field plant, I wonder whether my hon. Friend might be allowed to meet both with Swale borough council and the Four Gun field residents. Perhaps she could meet a small group. The implications of what might happen there over the next two or three months are extremely serious.
	How would Members of this place feel if they were buying a brand new house? For a 23, 24 or 25-year old, that would be a first buy, whereas someone of 55 or in their 60s might be moving into a smaller house because they are looking to retire. Many of those who bought the 150 new homes opposite Four Gun field during 1997 to 1999 fall into those two categories.
	I have met some of them, and they are either young parents or older people who wanted a home in which to enjoy their retirement. They bought those rather nice houses because they were opposite Four Gun field. It was an open field and had been in disuse, anecdotal evidence suggests, for 20 years or perhaps longer. That attracted many people, as the field was an open space that separated the urban sprawls of Rainham and Sittingbourne. If I were in their shoes I might well have made a similar decision. When their lawyers conducted searches, nothing came up on Four Gun field. They are nervous, because a house is the largest investment that anyone ever makes, about the resale value of their home, which they bought either as the first rung on the property ladder or as their retirement home.
	This is a difficult problem. I shall give a little background from the information leaflet supplied by Councillors Gerry Lewin and John Wright. Four Gun field is the land between the Three Sisters and Canterbury Lane. It is located in my constituency and is within the bounds of Upchurch parish council. Historically, the leaflet says, it has been used
	"for the storage and drying of bricks made in the brickworks on the opposite side of the road . . . on land now called Pear Tree Grove. In the 1980s and 90s the land, although owned by Redlands, was rarely used and was essentially open land grazed by horses and sometimes used by trial bikes."
	Until the late 1990s, when houses were being built opposite the field, the land had no planning land use designation in any of Swale borough council's local plans. I am at a loss to explain why that was the case, but it has compounded the problem that has arisen. In the late 1990s, the land was eventually purchased from Redlands by Beckett Pension Trustees, whose local agents are Kingsley Smith & Company.
	It has been difficult to get to the bottom of the problem of ownership, and I shall return to that later. The new owners of the land were granted a lawful development certificate in February 2000 for brickworks, open storage and related activities within class B2 for part of the site. That LDC was upheld in May 2001 after an appeal, registration APP/V2255/X/00/1052369. I should be grateful if the Minister would give more reasons for the upholding of that LDC, because it makes no sense to the house owners. The LDC clearly includes caveats about the site's use within class B2. I have tabled an oral question about that, and my constituents have tried to find out from the planning inspectorate what interpretation of the inspector's words was used on the LDC. However, we have been told that the file has been destroyed. That does not help my constituents, and certainly does not help their MP, better to understand how the use of the site was defined. Is that usual practice, and is there a copy of the file anywhere? My constituents believe that the landowner's agents have ignored the caveats in the LDC. They have now let the site so that a concrete crushing activity can operate permanently. I should be grateful for the Minister's opinion, and am happy to acknowledge that she may have to write to me.
	Last July, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), on whose constituency the land borders, and I went with Mr. Skinner, an MEP, to a public meeting with Swale borough council. There was a consensus that we would do our very best to try to resolve what has become a difficult problem. As the Minister will understand, a concrete crusher crushing concrete for a minimum of seven to eight hours a day does not just create a din but affects air quality, impacting on people with asthma and so on. Fortunately, Swale borough council has opposed the licence on the ground of noise, but the residents are concerned that there will be an appeal against that decision. I am worried that when the appeal is heard, the agents will argue that they are using the most up-to-date and effective equipment in an effort to justify the fact that they will return to the site and operate a concrete crusher barely a hundred metres from people's front doors. My constituents are naturally concerned about that.
	My constituents want to know how they can influence the decision and whether the LDC is set in stone—or perhaps concrete. They want to know, first, whether there is any chance of the decision being revisited and, secondly, who owns the land now. I have spent a considerable time trying to get to grips with that problem. I wish that I could name the trustees. My constituents are familiar with my forensic interest in ownership, as I found out who owned the Coniston hotel when there was an attempt to put an asylum centre on my patch. I have been trying to find out who owns Four Gun field. Originally, it was owned by Beckett Pension Trustees London Ltd., but it changed its name on 27 August 2002 to IPM SIPP Ltd, which seems to have an interest in IPM SIPP Administration Ltd. I could show the Minister various charts that demonstrate that one of those companies is dormant. The various IPM companies may be administering self-invested personal pensions. I am not familiar with SIPPs, but I assume that IPM administers a large number of them. Those SIPPs would not be individually constituted as companies, but would be classified as trusts under the control of IPM for the benefit of the individual. There seems to be reference to individual SIPPs in some of the charges against IPM SIPP Ltd.
	IPM SIPP Ltd is the same legal entity as Beckett Pension Trustees (London) Ltd, despite the name change, and is shown on the land register as the owner of Four Gun field. While companies are legal entities, trust interests are not, but any trust interest, perhaps from a SIPP administered by IPM, would probably be disclosed on the land register separately to protect the interest of any beneficial, as opposed to legal, owner. I accept that that is a complicated arrangement, but we must get to the bottom of it if we are to find out who owns Four Gun field. My constituents are worried that a deal has been stitched up—the concrete crusher will not arrive but, lo and behold, in the local plan for 2006 a deal is struck to build houses on the field because people do not want the crusher. That would be the end of the open space. If we understood the trust implications of ownership, that would help us to ask the owners to rethink their decision or approach it differently. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister would convene a meeting.
	Promises were made at the public meeting last July that Andrew Bowles, the leader of Swale borough council, would hold regular meetings. If he could not do so, he would make sure that officers met the action group regularly. However, there has been some friction, and I hope that that can be rectified, as it is important that the community as a whole speak with one voice on the issue. Some of my constituents are also concerned that the person chairing the 2006 local plan is also chairman of Upchurch parish council. I think that they are wrong, but I nevertheless raise that issue on their behalf.
	I wonder whether there is any way of overturning the lawful development certificate, and whether it is possible to bring the local plan policy forward to the current time, so that the ruling could be adopted in respect of the field itself.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the Adjournment debate, and on getting back to the Chamber in time; I know he had a hasty journey. My hon. Friend is a keen advocate for Swale and his constituency. He has before brought a series of constituency matters to the attention of the House, and on this occasion, too, he made a strong case on behalf of his constituents. I am interested in many of his points. As he said, complex issues are involved. I will respond as best I can this evening, and will write to him further.
	My hon. Friend raised various questions relating to Four Gun field. The site was used in connection with the local brickmaking industry from Victorian times. The western section was the brickmaking factory and the eastern section was used for the storage of bricks and materials. The brick factory ceased operations almost 50 years ago, but the land used for storage has continued to be used to store materials for brickmaking in the area. In 1999 the owners applied for a lawful development certificate, and because of the history of the site, that was granted by the local authority. In May 2001, following an appeal, the inspector granted a further certificate for a slightly enlarged area.
	The decision on lawful development certificates depends on the evidence of past use in an individual case. This was carefully considered by Swale council and again by the inspector at public inquiry. My hon. Friend mentioned the planning appeal file. Planning appeal files are destroyed a year after the final decision, unless the decision has been challenged in the High Court. Once a decision on an appeal has been made, the Secretary of State cannot reconsider the case, nor can he or his inspector interpret the terms of the decision. That is a matter for the courts.
	My hon. Friend raised some interesting issues about the nature of lawful development certificates, how they operate and the consequences where the use has changed for a considerable period in the interim. He also expressed his concerns about what happens when lawyers doing standard searches for homebuyers do not reflect the potential for lawful development certificates. I am interested in looking into those matters further and will respond to him in due course.
	On my hon. Friend's point about planning permission for the use of the concrete crusher, that use falls within the category of general industrial use in Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Orders. That means that any other general industrial activity can take place on the site without the need for planning permission. In June last year, complaints were made against KKB Plant Hire because noise levels from the operation of a mobile concrete crusher were above those allowed under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1990.
	An abatement notice was subsequently served on KKB Plant Hire, prohibiting the recurrence of noise amounting to a statutory nuisance at the site resulting from the use of crushing equipment. The operator appealed against the abatement notice, but the appeal was dismissed following a court hearing in November last year. As my hon. Friend knows, no concrete crushing has taken place on the site since 5 June, and if that activity were to resume and cause a further statutory noise nuisance to the local community, the local authority would be obliged to take enforcement action against the operator. However, if future noise levels were within the regulations, the local authority would not have the power to act, as the lawful development certificate allows KKB to use the site for general industrial purposes.
	My hon. Friend raised questions about the circumstances under which particular arguments might apply in order to justify the use of the site and whether best practice could be taken into account, and, if I may, I will write to him on that point as well. He raised questions about the ownership of the land, which again I am not able to answer this evening, and again I am happy to look into that further.
	My hon. Friend dealt with the issue of future plans for the site. Swale's emerging local plan gives special mention to the site and states that it considers it unsuitable for industrial uses that have the potential to cause nuisance to the adjoining residents. The local authority considers Four Gun field to be inappropriate for both housing and employment use and contrary to its local plan policies. Swale's emerging local plan states:
	"In this location the Council considers that both employment and housing development is inappropriate",
	and that
	"in addition, and to minimise the impact on the strategic and countryside gaps, any proposal should involve a minimum amount of built development, with the majority of the site being retained as open land, and restored to a natural state".
	However, the local authority, in order to secure a more acceptable future for the site, has said that it is prepared to consider alternative community or leisure uses, and has stated that any such proposal should be aimed at meeting the needs of the local community.
	The process of adopting a new plan allows for objections to policies to be submitted, and for alternatives to be put forward for change of use, including housing. Both my hon. Friend and the local residents affected by the current use of this site have the opportunity to object to the emerging prospects for Four Gun field. However, it must be recognised that a change of use cannot be forced on the owners should they wish to continue to use the land for general industrial activities while they have a lawful development certificate.
	My hon. Friend asked whether I would meet him and some of his constituents. I am happy in principle to have such a meeting, but I will need to take advice. My hon. Friend will know that a series of restrictions applies to any cases that involve planning and to cases where future planning decisions may come to the Secretary of State for appeal or final determination. Because of the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in those circumstances, it may not be possible to have such a meeting, but if it is possible, I will happily do so. If not, I shall do my best to respond in writing to the detailed points that my hon. Friend has raised to ensure that he has some response to his concerns.
	I know that this is an issue about which my hon. Friend's constituents feel strongly, and he has worked hard to raise their concerns and to resolve them. As he rightly says, in planning cases complex issues are often at stake, involving different sides of the argument and different interests. I am happy to respond to his concerns and to attempt to provide more detail than I have been able to do this evening.
	Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising his constituents' concerns and standing up for their interests in the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eight o'clock.